free-range politics, organic community

Worth a read: the Dems (and Ocasio!) just more of the same

Submitted by arendt on Wed, 07/11/2018 - 8:55am

While this Counterpunch article, The Wisdom of Serpents, starts out asking questions about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) biography, it winds up going through a lengthy laundry list of rotten things the Democratic Party has done since Obama was elected. The author quotes at length from the WSWS piece about CIA Dems, and generally points out how the Dems are nothing more than the party of the professional class - a party that agrees completely with, and funds without question, our militarized foreign policy.

A lot of the article wasn't news to me, since I have recently written about the professional class, and about CIA Dems. Nevertheless, the article might be a good thing to show friends who might be pried lose from the false belief that the Dems are anything but more of the same by throwing a bucket of cold facts in their face.

Before I also wind up ignoring AOC, here's what the author has to say about her:

this woman came out of the Democratic Party machine, out of Ted Kennedy’s office and Bernie Sanders campaign. Does that not tell you something? But third, there is something curious about her whole story. And her web page says her father was a small business owner and other places it says he is an architect. None of this matters, mind you, except that she is certainly not well known in the Bronx by activists or anyone else. She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image. Not to mention she is already parroting DNC rhetoric about Russiagate and already making friendly with the fascist opposition against Venezuela. One would think a Latina would know better, no? The U.S. is, after all, on the verge of a possible military intervention in Venezuela — and house and senate Democrats are perfectly aligned with this thinking. When did anyone last hear a Democrat voice support for the Bolivarian revolution? Then there is the fact that her most intense support came from white affluent gentrifiers in her district. So a radical she is not.

Can anyone support or refute the charges of foreign policy orthodoxy?

The article spoke about a lot more than AOC. She was just "the hook". The author cuts the chase: we don't debate our militarized, imperial foreign policy or the impact that militarization has at home (militarized police, massive surveillance). We are only allowed to debate Identity Politics bullshit.

people are given to partisan fighting over issues like gay marriage, or flag desecration, or gender neutral pronouns or whatever. They do not have public fights about foreign policy because both major parties are in total agreement. Trump is only carrying out policy that Obama started, largely, and that Hillary would have continued as well (only likely worse). For foreign policy is the black hole in American consciousness...

the Democratic Party is the party of finance capital, of Wall Street and the only difference from Republicans is that Democrats tend to express themselves in the terms of identity politics. Trump’s presidency expresses itself in the terms of nativist xenophobic racists. But honestly, they all vote mostly the same...

The Democratic Party is the party of affluence. And these candidates reflect a growing hostility to the working class and a growing embrace of conservative law and order values. And in that sense Ocasio-Cortez fits right in.

He then points out something that I also noticed about AOC. She was instantly embraced by the corporate media. Never villified for her surprising success, like Sanders was (Bernie Bros and the whole racist smearjob), like Cynthia McKinney was.

More than 90% of mainstream media is owned by six corporations (read six people), they don’t allow true change agents to have access to the airwaves. Be cautious and twice skeptical when unknown candidates are given millions in free advertisement by the same interests they’re supposedly fighting.”

Ocasio-Cortez was on Colbert, she was given a feature in Vogue. (Cynthia McKinney, who has a good deal more integrity than almost anyone else in her rotten party, was never invited on Cobert when she stood alone to call out President Bush on his Carlyle Group links, Saudi connections, and illegal the invasion of Iraq. Why? Not telegenic or perky enough?).

We already know the corporate media is proactively hostile to the left. What is sad is that we also have to be on guard when the corporate media promotes a fake leftist. This is nothing new. They sold Hillary Clinton to a lot of idiots as a "progressive". But, that illusion has fallen apart; so they had to go to someone who talks a little bit further to the left, who is younger (i.e., healthier), who ticks multiple Identity Politics boxes (Latina). If what the author says about her foreign policy stance is true, AOC is just another product manufactured by the media-industrial complex to continue the illusion of democracy in the USA.

is in here, but would her own words to jeremy scahill be corroboration enough? (if the transcript is correct, anyway...)

"“But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that.”

“All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.”
So when I had these conversations — I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place. In a sense, there are some tough spots that you’re in where when you have boots on the ground, and you have those soldiers that are there, pulling out immediately sometimes isn’t the most stabilizing course of action. So I think there, maybe. But I don’t think that these drone strikes were just.”

and just below that entry was: ‘Happy Fourth of July! The Story of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Reveals the Power of Good News About “Democratic Renewal”, jon schwarz

is in here, but would her own words to jeremy scahill be corroboration enough? (if the transcript is correct, anyway...)

"“But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that.”

“All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.”
So when I had these conversations — I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place. In a sense, there are some tough spots that you’re in where when you have boots on the ground, and you have those soldiers that are there, pulling out immediately sometimes isn’t the most stabilizing course of action. So I think there, maybe. But I don’t think that these drone strikes were just.”

and just below that entry was: ‘Happy Fourth of July! The Story of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Reveals the Power of Good News About “Democratic Renewal”, jon schwarz

She ran on a domestic platform, as Bernie had before her. People made insinuations when her foreign-policy plank on her website was removed just after her win, but a longer statement was quickly put in its place. Is it the "get us out of all foreign interventions" and "Russia's a bogus distraction" platform we'd like? No, but it is to the left of what the rest of the Democratic Party is saying. She seems to be in the Tulsi Gabbard wing of the party, with a little more on the economic front to place her squarely in the Social Democrat camp that Bernie occupies.

Yes she's a telegenic surprise, and that's what the media love. Especially as she can speak policy without a teleprompter, and that's a rarity now. But the impulse to extol or vilify her before anyone actually knows what she thinks, before she has a chance to weigh in on any legislation or policy from a real office, is a reflection on us, not her.

The aspersions about her background are the worst. She grew up in the North Bronx, a solidly middle-class kid, definitely not rich like the Westchester County folks a few miles further to the north. All you who envision the Bronx as an unrelieved South Bronx of gutted projects need to visit New York before you weigh in. And when someone decries that gentrifiers voted for her, well, that's a big duhhhh, that's a significant part of who lives in New York now. It's a reflection of their interest in a responsive younger go-getter over an absent older machine Democrat.

Is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez a radical? Only to the right-wingers, Republican and Democrat alike, who thought Social Democrat Bernie Sanders was a radical.

If you really don't like her, then work for her opponent in the general race. Because Republicans are so much better? Otherwise, let the constituents of her district choose whom they will.

Maybe the Bronx/Westchester thing riles people up. To me, it was merely an attempt to say that the picture she paints of herself is a little airbrushed - not so blatantly as Jeff Beals, but a little self-effacing in certain areas.

Having read the many excellent comments, including yours, I am coming to the position that she just blindsided the machine, that she used its deliberate creation of low turnout into a jiu jitsu move against them. I don't think she was some kind of Cointelpro mole.

But, I do think that she is not at all radical, given her support of Obama, Russiagate, and (if documented here) regime change in VZ. She just packages herself and her demographics very well, due to her obvious intelligence and sophistication - which she sure didn't get tending bar in ?Queens?. So, I don't think I'm going to pay much attention to her. At this point, I really don't care about "rising stars" in the completely corrupt duopoly.

She ran on a domestic platform, as Bernie had before her. People made insinuations when her foreign-policy plank on her website was removed just after her win, but a longer statement was quickly put in its place. Is it the "get us out of all foreign interventions" and "Russia's a bogus distraction" platform we'd like? No, but it is to the left of what the rest of the Democratic Party is saying. She seems to be in the Tulsi Gabbard wing of the party, with a little more on the economic front to place her squarely in the Social Democrat camp that Bernie occupies.

Yes she's a telegenic surprise, and that's what the media love. Especially as she can speak policy without a teleprompter, and that's a rarity now. But the impulse to extol or vilify her before anyone actually knows what she thinks, before she has a chance to weigh in on any legislation or policy from a real office, is a reflection on us, not her.

The aspersions about her background are the worst. She grew up in the North Bronx, a solidly middle-class kid, definitely not rich like the Westchester County folks a few miles further to the north. All you who envision the Bronx as an unrelieved South Bronx of gutted projects need to visit New York before you weigh in. And when someone decries that gentrifiers voted for her, well, that's a big duhhhh, that's a significant part of who lives in New York now. It's a reflection of their interest in a responsive younger go-getter over an absent older machine Democrat.

Is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez a radical? Only to the right-wingers, Republican and Democrat alike, who thought Social Democrat Bernie Sanders was a radical.

If you really don't like her, then work for her opponent in the general race. Because Republicans are so much better? Otherwise, let the constituents of her district choose whom they will.

Maybe the Bronx/Westchester thing riles people up. To me, it was merely an attempt to say that the picture she paints of herself is a little airbrushed - not so blatantly as Jeff Beals, but a little self-effacing in certain areas.

Having read the many excellent comments, including yours, I am coming to the position that she just blindsided the machine, that she used its deliberate creation of low turnout into a jiu jitsu move against them. I don't think she was some kind of Cointelpro mole.

But, I do think that she is not at all radical, given her support of Obama, Russiagate, and (if documented here) regime change in VZ. She just packages herself and her demographics very well, due to her obvious intelligence and sophistication - which she sure didn't get tending bar in ?Queens?. So, I don't think I'm going to pay much attention to her. At this point, I really don't care about "rising stars" in the completely corrupt duopoly.

@dance you monster
She labeled herself as a socialist, it was front page news here that she was a socialist, the Intercept headlined she was a socialist. Also the same for antiwar, she was immediately labeled as an antiwar candidate because of a few words in her "peace" plank.
Being a socialist and antiwar is radical at this point.
As for Boston U., all colleges have lightweights and heavyweights, just because she went to school there says nothing, except she had some big money to do it.

A) Socialism is not radical. Even in the US after Bernie's run in 2016 it's not radical. Most millennials express favor for it.

B) Most people professing to be socialists aren't actual socialists; they're Social Democrats. Again, not radical, any more than most of Europe is radical.

C) So antiwar folks reading AOC's peace plank thought she is antiwar. IMO, the jury is still out on that one. But sorry, not radical. More than a fringe of Americans are against wars.

D) " . . . she had some big money . . . ." And there's that allegation, again. She's really from Westchester County, isn't she? Just swimming in bucks as she feigns to be one of us. Here's a news flash, Al: there are things called scholarships and loans and work-study. Look, if you just hate her guts for whatever reason, say so, be honest, and leave the fact-free smears in your special treasure box at home.

[edited for spelling]

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 She labeled herself as a socialist, it was front page news here that she was a socialist, the Intercept headlined she was a socialist. Also the same for antiwar, she was immediately labeled as an antiwar candidate because of a few words in her "peace" plank.
Being a socialist and antiwar is radical at this point.
As for Boston U., all colleges have lightweights and heavyweights, just because she went to school there says nothing, except she had some big money to do it.

People (not just singling you out, but I had to reply to one post) here are getting distracted/insulted by incidentals:

bartending
Boston University
Westchester County

While its important that her bio is more true than it is puffery, in the end what counts is her policies. I ask everyone to please focus on the larger question, and avoid picking one aspect of AOC and voting her (or her critics in this thread) up or down.

A) Socialism is not radical. Even in the US after Bernie's run in 2016 it's not radical. Most millennials express favor for it.

B) Most people professing to be socialists aren't actual socialists; they're Social Democrats. Again, not radical, any more than most of Europe is radical.

C) So antiwar folks reading AOC's peace plank thought she is antiwar. IMO, the jury is still out on that one. But sorry, not radical. More than a fringe of Americans are against wars.

D) " . . . she had some big money . . . ." And there's that allegation, again. She's really from Westchester County, isn't she? Just swimming in bucks as she feigns to be one of us. Here's a news flash, Al: there are things called scholarships and loans and work-study. Look, if you just hate her guts for whatever reason, say so, be honest, and leave the fact-free smears in your special treasure box at home.

the Westchester smear and the bartending reference into this discussion. You, too, uncritically underscored an argument that this race for a Queens/Bronx congressional seat was really an agon between Hillary and Obama for control of a party. The BU reference was a rebuttal. And yes, biographical details are relevant when underlying motives are being fabricated from the ether.

As for policy, we don't know diddly yet. Seems to me she's better than many Dems, and nowhere near what I'd like to see as climate change will kill anyone the bombs and bullets miss.

Since my rebuttals seem only to be stoking the fire, though, I'll leave y'all to whatever this is going to become.

People (not just singling you out, but I had to reply to one post) here are getting distracted/insulted by incidentals:

bartending
Boston University
Westchester County

While its important that her bio is more true than it is puffery, in the end what counts is her policies. I ask everyone to please focus on the larger question, and avoid picking one aspect of AOC and voting her (or her critics in this thread) up or down.

and that I made an easy-to-misinterpret remark about bartending. (I meant that AOC learned about government by working for Teddy Kennedy a whole lot more than by bartending.)

I do not recall *introducing* the Hillary/Obama topic. In fact, I made a post thanking others for informing me about that. I don't recall *introducing* BU, but I may have quoted it in.

As an MA resident, I am quite aware that BU is a very toney, non-radical place these days - ever since John Silber ran Chomsky and Zinn out of town on a rail. So, BU references might as well be Harvard references AFAIAC.

I respect your position, although I disagree with it. The loyalty to the party formerly known as Democratic is a political fact. The people who are still loyal are as entitled to their position as any other non-violent political group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of this board are pretty fed up with the Democratic wing of the duopoly party. It takes not only fortitude, but also great self-control to defend a minority position without getting snippy about it. Thanks for that.

I understand why you are departing from this particular discussion, although I wish you would stay so that we avoid the echo chamber effect.

the Westchester smear and the bartending reference into this discussion. You, too, uncritically underscored an argument that this race for a Queens/Bronx congressional seat was really an agon between Hillary and Obama for control of a party. The BU reference was a rebuttal. And yes, biographical details are relevant when underlying motives are being fabricated from the ether.

As for policy, we don't know diddly yet. Seems to me she's better than many Dems, and nowhere near what I'd like to see as climate change will kill anyone the bombs and bullets miss.

Since my rebuttals seem only to be stoking the fire, though, I'll leave y'all to whatever this is going to become.

@dance you monster
being a fake democratic party socialist isn't. But she and others used the term SOCIALIST in the headlines and other intro's, many still are.
As for antiwar, her original plank clearly stated she was against unjust wars. Like I said, that's not antiwar. Real antiwar is radical.
In my opinion.
Relative to "hating her guts".. You've got to be fucking kidding me man. If you don't know this is about the democratic party/duopoly political system at this point, I don't know what else to say.

A) Socialism is not radical. Even in the US after Bernie's run in 2016 it's not radical. Most millennials express favor for it.

B) Most people professing to be socialists aren't actual socialists; they're Social Democrats. Again, not radical, any more than most of Europe is radical.

C) So antiwar folks reading AOC's peace plank thought she is antiwar. IMO, the jury is still out on that one. But sorry, not radical. More than a fringe of Americans are against wars.

D) " . . . she had some big money . . . ." And there's that allegation, again. She's really from Westchester County, isn't she? Just swimming in bucks as she feigns to be one of us. Here's a news flash, Al: there are things called scholarships and loans and work-study. Look, if you just hate her guts for whatever reason, say so, be honest, and leave the fact-free smears in your special treasure box at home.

Real antiwar is why one never sees figures like David Swanson or CodePink on mainstream media or Democrat-organized discussion panels.

Real antiwar is why Ron Paul got booed during a GOP presidential primary debate for quoting Jesus and the Golden Rule as his idea of a better principle for U.S. foreign policy.

Real antiwar is as welcome, or, to be more precise, unwelcome, around “serious” folks as architects’ and engineers’ 9/11 Truth.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 being a fake democratic party socialist isn't. But she and others used the term SOCIALIST in the headlines and other intro's, many still are.
As for antiwar, her original plank clearly stated she was against unjust wars. Like I said, that's not antiwar. Real antiwar is radical.
In my opinion.
Relative to "hating her guts".. You've got to be fucking kidding me man. If you don't know this is about the democratic party/duopoly political system at this point, I don't know what else to say.

A) Socialism is not radical. Even in the US after Bernie's run in 2016 it's not radical. Most millennials express favor for it.

B) Most people professing to be socialists aren't actual socialists; they're Social Democrats. Again, not radical, any more than most of Europe is radical.

C) So antiwar folks reading AOC's peace plank thought she is antiwar. IMO, the jury is still out on that one. But sorry, not radical. More than a fringe of Americans are against wars.

D) " . . . she had some big money . . . ." And there's that allegation, again. She's really from Westchester County, isn't she? Just swimming in bucks as she feigns to be one of us. Here's a news flash, Al: there are things called scholarships and loans and work-study. Look, if you just hate her guts for whatever reason, say so, be honest, and leave the fact-free smears in your special treasure box at home.

I take your point that AOC is not "my" candidate. But unless every single district in every single state has an AOC who can somehow mount a simultaneous, and successful, surprise attack on establishment candidates/incumbents, nothing will change. As others have more eloquently pointed out here, the few AOCs who do manage to win will quickly be absorbed by or coopted into the machine, and rendered impotent.

I look at her as@dance you monster
one of ToP's "more and better" Dimocrats.
She may not be the Dim we want, but she sure as hell beats the Dim she replaces!
She turns the House a deeper shade of blue.

This crucifixion of OSA by@dance you monster
The Left AND The Right literally started 5 minutes after she was declared the winner.
I saw a post in my FB timeline from a Socialist saying "she's fake. from Westchester, not the Bronx, a fake DSA... " yada yada. Five minutes after elected.
Fun(ny) Fact: She won the District, next door (NY-15), too. As a Write-In.
So...
"Fake progressive" or not, she's WAY to The Left of Crowley.
And that should be enough. But nope.

She ran on a domestic platform, as Bernie had before her. People made insinuations when her foreign-policy plank on her website was removed just after her win, but a longer statement was quickly put in its place. Is it the "get us out of all foreign interventions" and "Russia's a bogus distraction" platform we'd like? No, but it is to the left of what the rest of the Democratic Party is saying. She seems to be in the Tulsi Gabbard wing of the party, with a little more on the economic front to place her squarely in the Social Democrat camp that Bernie occupies.

Yes she's a telegenic surprise, and that's what the media love. Especially as she can speak policy without a teleprompter, and that's a rarity now. But the impulse to extol or vilify her before anyone actually knows what she thinks, before she has a chance to weigh in on any legislation or policy from a real office, is a reflection on us, not her.

The aspersions about her background are the worst. She grew up in the North Bronx, a solidly middle-class kid, definitely not rich like the Westchester County folks a few miles further to the north. All you who envision the Bronx as an unrelieved South Bronx of gutted projects need to visit New York before you weigh in. And when someone decries that gentrifiers voted for her, well, that's a big duhhhh, that's a significant part of who lives in New York now. It's a reflection of their interest in a responsive younger go-getter over an absent older machine Democrat.

Is Ms. Ocasio-Cortez a radical? Only to the right-wingers, Republican and Democrat alike, who thought Social Democrat Bernie Sanders was a radical.

If you really don't like her, then work for her opponent in the general race. Because Republicans are so much better? Otherwise, let the constituents of her district choose whom they will.

up

9 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

This crucifixion of OSA by#1.1.1.1.1
The Left AND The Right literally started 5 minutes after she was declared the winner.
I saw a post in my FB timeline from a Socialist saying "she's fake. from Westchester, not the Bronx, a fake DSA... " yada yada. Five minutes after elected.
Fun(ny) Fact: She won the District, next door (NY-15), too. As a Write-In.
So...
"Fake progressive" or not, she's WAY to The Left of Crowley.
And that should be enough. But nope.

The Never Ending Election Season. We’re still fighting the last one because it was run by and for incompetent liars and cheats who got caught. We’re winding down to the November mid-term election that the Dims are sure they’ll walk away with. All that as half the political clowns in the country are already auditioning for the starring role as President of the Unorganized & Totally Oligarchic Disjointed States of America in 2020. This constant gaslighting and non-stop propaganda flinging is basically all we have to look ‘forward’ to for the next 2+ years.

Regardless, after President Hopey-Changey Transformational Transparency I fully expect most of the opportunists out running around begging to be our ‘representatives’ are what we used to call ‘ringers’ way back when:

From Dictionary.com:

ringer2
—noun

1. a person or thing that rings or makes a ringing noise: a ringer of bells; a bell that is a loud ringer

2. dead ringer.—

- noun Slang.

1. a person or thing that closely resembles another; ringer: That old car is a dead ringer for the one we used to own.

3. Slang.

a. a racehorse, athlete, or the like entered in a competition under false representation as to identity or ability.

b. a student paid by another to take an exam.

C. any person or thing that is fraudulent; fake or impostor.

d. a substitute or addition, as a professional musician hired to strengthen a school orchestra:

The Never Ending Election Season. We’re still fighting the last one because it was run by and for incompetent liars and cheats who got caught. We’re winding down to the November mid-term election that the Dims are sure they’ll walk away with. All that as half the political clowns in the country are already auditioning for the starring role as President of the Unorganized & Totally Oligarchic Disjointed States of America in 2020. This constant gaslighting and non-stop propaganda flinging is basically all we have to look ‘forward’ to for the next 2+ years.

Regardless, after President Hopey-Changey Transformational Transparency I fully expect most of the opportunists out running around begging to be our ‘representatives’ are what we used to call ‘ringers’ way back when:

From Dictionary.com:

ringer2
—noun

1. a person or thing that rings or makes a ringing noise: a ringer of bells; a bell that is a loud ringer

2. dead ringer.—

- noun Slang.

1. a person or thing that closely resembles another; ringer: That old car is a dead ringer for the one we used to own.

3. Slang.

a. a racehorse, athlete, or the like entered in a competition under false representation as to identity or ability.

b. a student paid by another to take an exam.

C. any person or thing that is fraudulent; fake or impostor.

d. a substitute or addition, as a professional musician hired to strengthen a school orchestra:

“We hired three ringers for the commencement concert.”

up

5 users have voted.

—

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking.

Hillbots are far more brazen about their establishment ties & policies.

Obamabots are more sneaky - far better at pretending to be something they are not and telling lefties what they want to hear.

AOC's campaign sounds like a classic Obama operation - take an attractive, young, of color candidate, parrot progressive messaging on the domestic side, ride the fence on foreign policy, toss in some well strategized media, and stir.

For me, AOC's win says far more about the power struggle in the Dem party between Clinton and Obama than it does about the struggle between lefties and centrists. NYC is Hill's political base. AOC's win (more importantly Crowley's loss) in the boroughs is a major blow to her and a big win for Obama.

So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking.

Hillbots are far more brazen about their establishment ties & policies.

Obamabots are more sneaky - far better at pretending to be something they are not and telling lefties what they want to hear.

AOC's campaign sounds like a classic Obama operation - take an attractive, young, of color candidate, parrot progressive messaging on the domestic side, ride the fence on foreign policy, toss in some well strategized media, and stir.

For me, AOC's win says far more about the power struggle in the Dem party between Clinton and Obama than it does about the struggle between lefties and centrists. NYC is Hill's political base. AOC's win (more importantly Crowley's loss) in the boroughs is a major blow to her and a big win for Obama.

There's also a cadre of Clinton allies who stayed with her during her acrimonious primary battle against Obama eight years ago. That group includes Cleaver and New York Rep. Joe Crowley.

Crowley has had a long-standing relationship with the Clintons, and it was strengthened when he became one of her earliest endorsers in Congress last year. He’s in line to chair the Democratic Caucus next Congress, the No. 4 spot in House Democratic leadership. Having a close relationship with the White House could help him push forward the Democrats' agenda in a Congress that will likely still be controlled by Republicans.

With AOC's win, Obama took a major scalp (and settled a very old score).

There's also a cadre of Clinton allies who stayed with her during her acrimonious primary battle against Obama eight years ago. That group includes Cleaver and New York Rep. Joe Crowley.

Crowley has had a long-standing relationship with the Clintons, and it was strengthened when he became one of her earliest endorsers in Congress last year. He’s in line to chair the Democratic Caucus next Congress, the No. 4 spot in House Democratic leadership. Having a close relationship with the White House could help him push forward the Democrats' agenda in a Congress that will likely still be controlled by Republicans.

With AOC's win, Obama took a major scalp (and settled a very old score).

is a Berniecrat.@Not Henry Kissinger
To whom most are no fans of O'bummer.
She might be an O'bummer stealth candidate, except there are no O'bummer Dims. Or any visible at least. And I question why O'bummer would give a damn about national politics except to salvage what's left of his Legacy. He's on the $200 K/speech circuit, and I doubt that he cares very much about Inside the Beltway crap unless Moochelle my belle has sights on the oval office. Which I also doubt. ymmv.

There's also a cadre of Clinton allies who stayed with her during her acrimonious primary battle against Obama eight years ago. That group includes Cleaver and New York Rep. Joe Crowley.

Crowley has had a long-standing relationship with the Clintons, and it was strengthened when he became one of her earliest endorsers in Congress last year. He’s in line to chair the Democratic Caucus next Congress, the No. 4 spot in House Democratic leadership. Having a close relationship with the White House could help him push forward the Democrats' agenda in a Congress that will likely still be controlled by Republicans.

With AOC's win, Obama took a major scalp (and settled a very old score).

up

4 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

But if you think Obama is just riding off into the sunset and has no interest in playing Dem kingmaker, I've got a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you.

is a Berniecrat.#1.1.1.1.2.1.1
To whom most are no fans of O'bummer.
She might be an O'bummer stealth candidate, except there are no O'bummer Dims. Or any visible at least. And I question why O'bummer would give a damn about national politics except to salvage what's left of his Legacy. He's on the $200 K/speech circuit, and I doubt that he cares very much about Inside the Beltway crap unless Moochelle my belle has sights on the oval office. Which I also doubt. ymmv.

up

9 users have voted.

—

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

of the DP. His new PAC is who is sending people to hassle members of the Trump administration. And don't forget that he was who got Perez installed as head of the DNC over Ellison who wasn't as neoliberal as the party wanted. If you need evidence of his involvement I'll try to find it. Both he and the Hill-Creature are both very involved. In fact there are indications that she is going to run again. She is doing a lot of fundraising behind the scenes.

is a Berniecrat.#1.1.1.1.2.1.1
To whom most are no fans of O'bummer.
She might be an O'bummer stealth candidate, except there are no O'bummer Dims. Or any visible at least. And I question why O'bummer would give a damn about national politics except to salvage what's left of his Legacy. He's on the $200 K/speech circuit, and I doubt that he cares very much about Inside the Beltway crap unless Moochelle my belle has sights on the oval office. Which I also doubt. ymmv.

up

10 users have voted.

—

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

of the DP. His new PAC is who is sending people to hassle members of the Trump administration. And don't forget that he was who got Perez installed as head of the DNC over Ellison who wasn't as neoliberal as the party wanted. If you need evidence of his involvement I'll try to find it. Both he and the Hill-Creature are both very involved. In fact there are indications that she is going to run again. She is doing a lot of fundraising behind the scenes.

@Wink
Barack would get to campaign again and all the centrists can jump on board. I think there's going to be heck of a lot more centrists this time, especially among former Republicans. If the general election came down to Michelle vs Trump vs Jill Stein, I would vote for Michelle. For me it would be a much easier choice than Hillary vs Trump. I think Michelle is a lot more real than Hillary. I like Michelle's life story a lot more than Trump's story of non-stop selfishness since birth.

is a Berniecrat.#1.1.1.1.2.1.1
To whom most are no fans of O'bummer.
She might be an O'bummer stealth candidate, except there are no O'bummer Dims. Or any visible at least. And I question why O'bummer would give a damn about national politics except to salvage what's left of his Legacy. He's on the $200 K/speech circuit, and I doubt that he cares very much about Inside the Beltway crap unless Moochelle my belle has sights on the oval office. Which I also doubt. ymmv.

Well, she said once on a campaign rally at BCC Highschool in Bethesda, MD, that it is stupid for a mom to cook every day for her children, three times yes, all the 7 days, no.

I never forgot this little remark and thought she has her little bag of arrogance to carry with her around. What are working moms supposed to do, let their kids eat McDonalds all the time? Too, expensive, Michelle, and to call mothers who cook for their families stupid is something I don't forget.

Despite all her biography of her parents being clearly in the working lower middle class. She is a nice lady, a lovely mother and her little daughter Sasha was so cute, I named my dog after her. But really, we working moms don't have the money and don't have the help to afford not to cook for our kids, even if we have the least time to do so. Never been a single mom with kids and no money? Yes. So, I doubt she would not be ... the same thing all over again ...

And btw the discussion here about AOC ... I just saw one interview with her posted here probably on the EB, don't remember', and all I thought, lady, you are not a Barbara Jordan. I don't want to be unfair, nobody can be responsible for ones age and ethnicity. So, I don't like this comment of mine, but also can't help saying it. But she didn't convince me as something that would not end up ... the same thing all over again.

Is this my guts speaking or my sub-conscious conscience, as janis b called it? I don't know. It's really hard not to be torn apart. In the end I tell myself, heh, you are getting old and you need to be fair with the next generation coming to power. It's just not easy to be fair. Sigh.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1.2
Barack would get to campaign again and all the centrists can jump on board. I think there's going to be heck of a lot more centrists this time, especially among former Republicans. If the general election came down to Michelle vs Trump vs Jill Stein, I would vote for Michelle. For me it would be a much easier choice than Hillary vs Trump. I think Michelle is a lot more real than Hillary. I like Michelle's life story a lot more than Trump's story of non-stop selfishness since birth.

Well, she said once on a campaign rally at BCC Highschool in Bethesda, MD, that it is stupid for a mom to cook every day for her children, three times yes, all the 7 days, no.

I never forgot this little remark and thought she has her little bag of arrogance to carry with her around. What are working moms supposed to do, let their kids eat McDonalds all the time? Too, expensive, Michelle, and to call mothers who cook for their families stupid is something I don't forget.

Despite all her biography of her parents being clearly in the working lower middle class. She is a nice lady, a lovely mother and her little daughter Sasha was so cute, I named my dog after her. But really, we working moms don't have the money and don't have the help to afford not to cook for our kids, even if we have the least time to do so. Never been a single mom with kids and no money? Yes. So, I doubt she would not be ... the same thing all over again ...

And btw the discussion here about AOC ... I just saw one interview with her posted here probably on the EB, don't remember', and all I thought, lady, you are not a Barbara Jordan. I don't want to be unfair, nobody can be responsible for ones age and ethnicity. So, I don't like this comment of mine, but also can't help saying it. But she didn't convince me as something that would not end up ... the same thing all over again.

Is this my guts speaking or my sub-conscious conscience, as janis b called it? I don't know. It's really hard not to be torn apart. In the end I tell myself, heh, you are getting old and you need to be fair with the next generation coming to power. It's just not easy to be fair. Sigh.

Just because HRC carpetbagged her way in doesn't mean she captured everyone's hearts. Wall Street loves Hillary. The Dem machine loves her. Many New Yorkers would voice something different. Why, if NYC were a lock for Hillary, would there have been so much hanky-panky with the voter rolls in 2016?

I have to say I'm finding the suspicion that Ocasio-Cortez was inserted into the race to lead the left back to the fold to be a tad paranoid. And the thought she's a plant for the Obamas' power base is something you have to tilt your head just a certain way to envision. Maybe, just maybe, AOC actually did want to run and win in a race that the Dem machine arrogantly thought it didn't have to work for.

Now that AOC won the primary and presumably will win the general, it's clear the party wants to enwrap her in its straitjacket embrace. We will see how she deals with that.

And everybody, Ocasio-Cortez is New Yorkers' candidate, not yours. You don't have to buy what she's selling, but until she runs for something bigger, it's New Yorkers' choice. If you oppose her positions, find someone two years from now to challenge her -- among the Dems or from another party. She's only one candidate, not the fulcrum of world salvation.

So let me summarize. The Democratic Party is now drawing heavily from military intelligence, the CIA, Pentagon and State Department (with specific emphasis on those with intelligence experience). These sorts of backgrounds suggest most of these candidates have knowledge of propaganda and psy-ops, as well as a basic value system that is consonant with American exceptionalism. They know a lot, we presume, about marketing strategies and about disinformation. So, is it not peculiar to anyone that this new face of pseudo socialism pops up right now — literally out of nowhere? See, to me it feels very Obama like. Its perception management meets electoral long game strategic thinking.

Hillbots are far more brazen about their establishment ties & policies.

Obamabots are more sneaky - far better at pretending to be something they are not and telling lefties what they want to hear.

AOC's campaign sounds like a classic Obama operation - take an attractive, young, of color candidate, parrot progressive messaging on the domestic side, ride the fence on foreign policy, toss in some well strategized media, and stir.

For me, AOC's win says far more about the power struggle in the Dem party between Clinton and Obama than it does about the struggle between lefties and centrists. NYC is Hill's political base. AOC's win (more importantly Crowley's loss) in the boroughs is a major blow to her and a big win for Obama.

Just because HRC carpetbagged her way in doesn't mean she captured everyone's hearts. Wall Street loves Hillary. The Dem machine loves her. Many New Yorkers would voice something different. Why, if NYC were a lock for Hillary, would there have been so much hanky-panky with the voter rolls in 2016?

I have to say I'm finding the suspicion that Ocasio-Cortez was inserted into the race to lead the left back to the fold to be a tad paranoid. And the thought she's a plant for the Obamas' power base is something you have to tilt your head just a certain way to envision. Maybe, just maybe, AOC actually did want to run and win in a race that the Dem machine arrogantly thought it didn't have to work for.

Now that AOC won the primary and presumably will win the general, it's clear the party wants to enwrap her in its straitjacket embrace. We will see how she deals with that.

And everybody, Ocasio-Cortez is New Yorkers' candidate, not yours. You don't have to buy what she's selling, but until she runs for something bigger, it's New Yorkers' choice. If you oppose her positions, find someone two years from now to challenge her -- among the Dems or from another party. She's only one candidate, not the fulcrum of world salvation.

up

6 users have voted.

—

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

The Dem machine is big in NY, but most New Yorkers don't like it, even when they agree on a candidate, and this time they clearly didn't agree.

It's not Obama's town, either.

Finally, this race was not about Hillary. It was about the aspirations of individual voters in Queens and the Bronx. Please give some benefit of the doubt to the proposition that New Yorkers are capable of thinking for themselves.

Finally, this race was not about Hillary. It was about the aspirations of individual voters in Queens and the Bronx. Please give some benefit of the doubt to the proposition that New Yorkers are capable of thinking for themselves

All your trite platitudes don't change the fact that there's a very real internal power struggle going on within the Democratic Party establishment between the Clinton and Obama factions - a struggle that has been going on since the 2008 primaries.

To write off that struggle as 'paranoid' and pretend that it's all about 'individual voters' is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

The Dem machine is big in NY, but most New Yorkers don't like it, even when they agree on a candidate, and this time they clearly didn't agree.

It's not Obama's town, either.

Finally, this race was not about Hillary. It was about the aspirations of individual voters in Queens and the Bronx. Please give some benefit of the doubt to the proposition that New Yorkers are capable of thinking for themselves.

up

12 users have voted.

—

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

Finally, this race was not about Hillary. It was about the aspirations of individual voters in Queens and the Bronx. Please give some benefit of the doubt to the proposition that New Yorkers are capable of thinking for themselves

All your trite platitudes don't change the fact that there's a very real internal power struggle going on within the Democratic Party establishment between the Clinton and Obama factions - a struggle that has been going on since the 2008 primaries.

To write off that struggle as 'paranoid' and pretend that it's all about 'individual voters' is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

To write off voters as mere brainless pawns in some power struggle between two has-been politicians is insulting.

When a 3% turnout wins a primary, that makes the 97% who didn't bother to vote worse than brainless. Those 97% were manipulated by the low-turnout tactics of the machine.

I think both of you have a point. NHK is right that the electorate is vastly and skillfully manipulated. I think you are right that the people who voted in this particular primary were expressing their political views at a local level.

See? It's here too. I'll reiterate again that to protest by not voting engenders the above reaction.

What if 97% of the voters HAD voted and voted for "Bernie Sanders" or "Karl Marx" or "Batman" or "None of the above" or "Yo' Momma!"? Even if the ballots were spoiled, imagine the furor if 97% of the ballots were rejected as spoiled! THAT's a protest!
Staying home marks you as being a jaded Millenial too busy playing games on his smartphone.

To write off voters as mere brainless pawns in some power struggle between two has-been politicians is insulting.

When a 3% turnout wins a primary, that makes the 97% who didn't bother to vote worse than brainless. Those 97% were manipulated by the low-turnout tactics of the machine.

I think both of you have a point. NHK is right that the electorate is vastly and skillfully manipulated. I think you are right that the people who voted in this particular primary were expressing their political views at a local level.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
How else are we supposed to feel? We have nowhere to go. No avenues for real employment. No hope for retirement. A near-dead planet. A bourgeoisie that is balls out hostile to anything and anyone that isn't part of their clique.

Many in my generation went off to fight several wars all based on lies. Many also went into mountains of debt to get degrees for jobs that no longer exist. We tried time and time again to make our voices heard and our votes count. Nobody listened. Nobody cared.

Give us something to work toward and we'll show up. No more of this luke-warm fake center-left, swerve far-right gradualist (read: MLK's White Moderate) shit the current crop of pig shit do-less-than-nothing Gentricrats have shoved up this country's ass since the days of Saint Ronnie.

Ocasio-Cortez will be the puppet with a giant hand up her ass parroting left-sounding ideals while giving massive handjobs to the far-right cappie pigs behind closed doors. It worked for Obama, didn't it? Hell, he even managed to let the far-right cappie pigs control the narrative and policy even while the pundits managed to paint him as a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Communist Fascist Socialist Radical Leftist Nazi SJW and the plebs totally ate it up....even when he was nothing more than Ronald Reagan in black face. Yeah, I said it. Ocasio-Cortez is just more of the same in this respect. Don't believe me? Just wait until it gets closer to the general election. Happens every single time.

See? It's here too. I'll reiterate again that to protest by not voting engenders the above reaction.

What if 97% of the voters HAD voted and voted for "Bernie Sanders" or "Karl Marx" or "Batman" or "None of the above" or "Yo' Momma!"? Even if the ballots were spoiled, imagine the furor if 97% of the ballots were rejected as spoiled! THAT's a protest!
Staying home marks you as being a jaded Millenial too busy playing games on his smartphone.

up

6 users have voted.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

To write off voters as mere brainless pawns in some power struggle between two has-been politicians is insulting.

When a 3% turnout wins a primary, that makes the 97% who didn't bother to vote worse than brainless. Those 97% were manipulated by the low-turnout tactics of the machine.

I think both of you have a point. NHK is right that the electorate is vastly and skillfully manipulated. I think you are right that the people who voted in this particular primary were expressing their political views at a local level.

up

7 users have voted.

—

It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan

It is not irrelevant. It is how the game is played, at least in NY. AOC demonstrated that it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe some other folks will wake up because of this. That's certainly relevant.

#1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 The low turn out criticism is not valid because all politicians in NY are elected by the same low turn out.

For people who profess to be done with the Democratic Party, some of y'all really do obsess over the byzantine cravings of relevance therein.

That's because, like it or not, the Democratic Party still enjoys fully half the power of determining who makes the rules in our society. Their byzantine machinations are therefore still relevant to us, unfortunately.

To write off voters as mere brainless pawns in some power struggle between two has-been politicians is insulting.

Not when said voters earn that write-off, as New York City's voters have done repeatedly. Remember "Massachusetts, the only State with three Senators!" ??

The New York State Legislature in Albany could fix that easily, by requiring that all political candidates for offices not shared with other States (i.e., President and Vice President) be timely high-school graduates from an accredited high school situate in the State of New York. Slam the door to carpetbaggers, and New York City voters will have to come to terms with the consequences of their votes. (And New York will be represented by New Yorkers, as it should be.)

@thanatokephaloides@thanatokephaloides@thanatokephaloides@thanatokephaloides
The Constitution sets the requirements for Senator.
"Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old, (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past nine years, and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election." I think the Supremes have set bounds on States' residency requirements too, but I'm no lawyer. It reads to me like it's one day. States set restrictions on whether you are a resident or a visitor, but, as I said, I Think SCOTUS has overturned excessive restrictions. That's what happened to California's free college for residents of (I think) at least a year. They said anything over two weeks was excessive and California dropped free tuition because they didn't want to pay for anyone from the other 49 states that had money for two weeks at Motel 6.

BTW, I didn't know about that second requirement, the nine years part.

EDIT:
Remember, when the Constitution was written, Senators were elected by state legislatures not the people.

For people who profess to be done with the Democratic Party, some of y'all really do obsess over the byzantine cravings of relevance therein.

That's because, like it or not, the Democratic Party still enjoys fully half the power of determining who makes the rules in our society. Their byzantine machinations are therefore still relevant to us, unfortunately.

To write off voters as mere brainless pawns in some power struggle between two has-been politicians is insulting.

Not when said voters earn that write-off, as New York City's voters have done repeatedly. Remember "Massachusetts, the only State with three Senators!" ??

The New York State Legislature in Albany could fix that easily, by requiring that all political candidates for offices not shared with other States (i.e., President and Vice President) be timely high-school graduates from an accredited high school situate in the State of New York. Slam the door to carpetbaggers, and New York City voters will have to come to terms with the consequences of their votes. (And New York will be represented by New Yorkers, as it should be.)

That's what happened to California's free college for residents of (I think) at least a year. They said anything over two weeks was excessive and California dropped free tuition because they didn't want to pay for anyone from the other 49 states that had money for two weeks at Motel 6.

And this, if I recall correctly, was when Ronnie Ray Gun was Governor (1967 - 1975). Just in time to screw me (HS class of 1976) out of the shot entirely.

#1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2#1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2#1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2#1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1.2
The Constitution sets the requirements for Senator.
"Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: (1) they must be at least 30 years old, (2) they must have been citizens of the United States for at least the past nine years, and (3) they must be inhabitants of the states they seek to represent at the time of their election." I think the Supremes have set bounds on States' residency requirements too, but I'm no lawyer. It reads to me like it's one day. States set restrictions on whether you are a resident or a visitor, but, as I said, I Think SCOTUS has overturned excessive restrictions. That's what happened to California's free college for residents of (I think) at least a year. They said anything over two weeks was excessive and California dropped free tuition because they didn't want to pay for anyone from the other 49 states that had money for two weeks at Motel 6.

BTW, I didn't know about that second requirement, the nine years part.

EDIT:
Remember, when the Constitution was written, Senators were elected by state legislatures not the people.

Just because HRC carpetbagged her way in doesn't mean she captured everyone's hearts. Wall Street loves Hillary. The Dem machine loves her. Many New Yorkers would voice something different. Why, if NYC were a lock for Hillary, would there have been so much hanky-panky with the voter rolls in 2016?

I have to say I'm finding the suspicion that Ocasio-Cortez was inserted into the race to lead the left back to the fold to be a tad paranoid. And the thought she's a plant for the Obamas' power base is something you have to tilt your head just a certain way to envision. Maybe, just maybe, AOC actually did want to run and win in a race that the Dem machine arrogantly thought it didn't have to work for.

Now that AOC won the primary and presumably will win the general, it's clear the party wants to enwrap her in its straitjacket embrace. We will see how she deals with that.

And everybody, Ocasio-Cortez is New Yorkers' candidate, not yours. You don't have to buy what she's selling, but until she runs for something bigger, it's New Yorkers' choice. If you oppose her positions, find someone two years from now to challenge her -- among the Dems or from another party. She's only one candidate, not the fulcrum of world salvation.

up

5 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

@wendy davis
"I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place."

She has no clue. That's the same bullshit the dem party supporters used to justify Obama's wars against Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. and obviously Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Like blaming it on Bush and Obama was just trying to make it right.

is in here, but would her own words to jeremy scahill be corroboration enough? (if the transcript is correct, anyway...)

"“But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that.”

“All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.”
So when I had these conversations — I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place. In a sense, there are some tough spots that you’re in where when you have boots on the ground, and you have those soldiers that are there, pulling out immediately sometimes isn’t the most stabilizing course of action. So I think there, maybe. But I don’t think that these drone strikes were just.”

and just below that entry was: ‘Happy Fourth of July! The Story of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Reveals the Power of Good News About “Democratic Renewal”, jon schwarz

#1.1.1 "I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place."

She has no clue. That's the same bullshit the dem party supporters used to justify Obama's wars against Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. and obviously Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Like blaming it on Bush and Obama was just trying to make it right.

correct. i've been busy on the NATO summit in brussels today and tomorrow (surely someone is writing about it here, no?) i've been building both a light-hearted twitter storify, and a sober look at it's Evil irrelevance in the never ending Cold War against the the soviet union putin's roosia, but now that Colombia is an 'offishul partner' (it ain't NATO no longer, eh?), having ports in both the east and west southern oceans, *and* that the US has signed a military agreement w/ ecuador (think assange in the embassy being transported to...gitmo?), VZ under attack from the neighboring nations CIA special ops w/ amerika leading behind) this tickled my innards.

This photo is the perfect metaphor. Donald Trump clearly sees the world the wrong way when compared to other NATO leaders. Is it because he’s a moron, because Putin tells him to or a mixture of both? pic.twitter.com/RRGCN0Hw70

not that boss Tweet is at all coherent on ukraine 'ed nato (mean funding by 2% of yer gdp because: roosian invasion, again rather haphazardly and 'in the moment', but that summit is whole 'nother 'opinions' sick comedy show.

but as bernie had said that he'd run as a Dem 'or else chuck todd wouldn't have had him on' (or close): yes, miz oasio has been everywhere, and the tankies on twitter are laughing that after her actual bio was challenged, 'her bio has now become a palmiset' (and yes, i'd had to look it up)

but for those who hope the bern runs in 2020 (?) as an indie or DSA: Occupy the FEC to change the rules on third party candidates being allowed in televised debates!

#1.1.1 "I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place."

She has no clue. That's the same bullshit the dem party supporters used to justify Obama's wars against Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. and obviously Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Like blaming it on Bush and Obama was just trying to make it right.

correct. i've been busy on the NATO summit in brussels today and tomorrow (surely someone is writing about it here, no?) i've been building both a light-hearted twitter storify, and a sober look at it's Evil irrelevance in the never ending Cold War against the the soviet union putin's roosia, but now that Colombia is an 'offishul partner' (it ain't NATO no longer, eh?), having ports in both the east and west southern oceans, *and* that the US has signed a military agreement w/ ecuador (think assange in the embassy being transported to...gitmo?), VZ under attack from the neighboring nations CIA special ops w/ amerika leading behind) this tickled my innards.

This photo is the perfect metaphor. Donald Trump clearly sees the world the wrong way when compared to other NATO leaders. Is it because he’s a moron, because Putin tells him to or a mixture of both? pic.twitter.com/RRGCN0Hw70

not that boss Tweet is at all coherent on ukraine 'ed nato (mean funding by 2% of yer gdp because: roosian invasion, again rather haphazardly and 'in the moment', but that summit is whole 'nother 'opinions' sick comedy show.

but as bernie had said that he'd run as a Dem 'or else chuck todd wouldn't have had him on' (or close): yes, miz oasio has been everywhere, and the tankies on twitter are laughing that after her actual bio was challenged, 'her bio has now become a palmiset' (and yes, i'd had to look it up)

but for those who hope the bern runs in 2020 (?) as an indie or DSA: Occupy the FEC to change the rules on third party candidates being allowed in televised debates!

to be about the bern...but for me, widening the field to include more parties, indies, etc. is the thing, as this does>>>. it's a page from real clear politics 2017 for you to peruse rather than highlight much, but indeed there are a lot of organizations engaged in lawsuits, of course, some judicial decisions are not being upheld, and suggestions for the stupid questions asked in polling to get a candidate to the magical 15% threshold to be able to 'debate'.

the counter-arguments are also noteworthy like 'pay for your own debates' says the PDC. if you can figure out the monetary stuff in there, good on you. maybe i was bored by then, but i did laugh at the suggestion of open primaries held online. the russians would hack them!!!(j/k), but in this country, scary biscuits if one thinks hackable diebolds, but maybe it would need to look like that, i dunno. in switzerland, a direct democracy, they vote on absolutely everything, and iirc, my friend there said it's all online. but then there are so many internet providers there that the rates are cheap as hell. also their system includes one-year-presidents switching from among elected cabinet officials, or so i remember it. i do think our system sucks that way, that one person becomes 'the leader of the free world', as do lifetime terms for scotus 'justices'.

it' not at all clear to me that voting matters as much as relentless long term activism, but the every-two-years charade is...that it does. now if the 'activism' is a cul-de-sac to the D party where the best movements go to die...

in CO this year, we indies were all sent bith R and D ballots, we could vote on one. i did actually vote...for one D county commissioner, nuttin' else; who cared? not i. sometimes voting against some tea party R is tempting, but no mas!

a side note: a local D activist called me the other day, and i was in such a mood that i practically yelled at him: 'fuck the democrats!' yeah, i shouldn't have done that, but i did finally explain my long-time history a D campaign operative. 'nice talking with you, wendy', said peter...before saying goodbye.

@wendy davis
Thanks for that last anecdote. I don't seem to get phone calls, but I've returned a few DNC surveys with similar messages. Not sure why I'm still on their list!

Thanks for the research and link, too. I'll give it a look, but am persuaded by your argument that long-term activism is likely more useful. Plus, if there's a lot of math in this link I, too, will glaze over ...

to be about the bern...but for me, widening the field to include more parties, indies, etc. is the thing, as this does>>>. it's a page from real clear politics 2017 for you to peruse rather than highlight much, but indeed there are a lot of organizations engaged in lawsuits, of course, some judicial decisions are not being upheld, and suggestions for the stupid questions asked in polling to get a candidate to the magical 15% threshold to be able to 'debate'.

the counter-arguments are also noteworthy like 'pay for your own debates' says the PDC. if you can figure out the monetary stuff in there, good on you. maybe i was bored by then, but i did laugh at the suggestion of open primaries held online. the russians would hack them!!!(j/k), but in this country, scary biscuits if one thinks hackable diebolds, but maybe it would need to look like that, i dunno. in switzerland, a direct democracy, they vote on absolutely everything, and iirc, my friend there said it's all online. but then there are so many internet providers there that the rates are cheap as hell. also their system includes one-year-presidents switching from among elected cabinet officials, or so i remember it. i do think our system sucks that way, that one person becomes 'the leader of the free world', as do lifetime terms for scotus 'justices'.

it' not at all clear to me that voting matters as much as relentless long term activism, but the every-two-years charade is...that it does. now if the 'activism' is a cul-de-sac to the D party where the best movements go to die...

in CO this year, we indies were all sent bith R and D ballots, we could vote on one. i did actually vote...for one D county commissioner, nuttin' else; who cared? not i. sometimes voting against some tea party R is tempting, but no mas!

a side note: a local D activist called me the other day, and i was in such a mood that i practically yelled at him: 'fuck the democrats!' yeah, i shouldn't have done that, but i did finally explain my long-time history a D campaign operative. 'nice talking with you, wendy', said peter...before saying goodbye.

@Big Al
but neither can caged children and deportation numbers under His Rule, see here and here.

on the other hand, david correia (albuqueque professor/activist, where the police state killings activism first began) writes: 'abolish ICE, but don't stop there'.

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, defeated Joseph Crowley, the chairperson of the both the House’s Democratic Caucus, and the Queen’s County Democratic Party, in the democratic primary for New York’s 14th congressional district, on a platform that included a demand to abolish ICE. The call has gone mainstream since. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, among others, have joined Ocasio-Cortez in demanding an end to ICE."

(who'd all said that the border should be secure, but immigration deportations should focus on crime and 'reflect our values' and (whatever that means...)

Police don’t keep us safe, that we know. But who or what will? This is the question every politician — liberal or conservative —and many activists, refuse to ask for fear of being dismissed as naïve or, worse, “soft” on crime. But what’s softer than supporting police, an institution with no record of keeping working people safe?

Calls to abolish ICE, to be meaningful, must include calls to abolish local police too. The police is an institution organized around the use of violence for punishment and coercion overwhelmingly arrayed against poor communities of color. Abolition, not reform, is the solution to this problem. No more money for cops or reform. The money and energy wasted on police reform and police agencies would be better spent supporting community efforts at alternatives. Fewer cops and more emergency and transitional housing. Fewer cops and more support for institutions that serve (not arrest) people suffering mental health crises or drug addiction. Abolition ICE, yes, but don’t stop there."

#1.1.1 "I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place."

She has no clue. That's the same bullshit the dem party supporters used to justify Obama's wars against Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. and obviously Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Like blaming it on Bush and Obama was just trying to make it right.

And this is New York magazine — hardly given to promoting right-wing talking points.

#1.1.1.2
but neither can caged children and deportation numbers under His Rule, see here and here.

on the other hand, david correia (albuqueque professor/activist, where the police state killings activism first began) writes: 'abolish ICE, but don't stop there'.

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, defeated Joseph Crowley, the chairperson of the both the House’s Democratic Caucus, and the Queen’s County Democratic Party, in the democratic primary for New York’s 14th congressional district, on a platform that included a demand to abolish ICE. The call has gone mainstream since. U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, among others, have joined Ocasio-Cortez in demanding an end to ICE."

(who'd all said that the border should be secure, but immigration deportations should focus on crime and 'reflect our values' and (whatever that means...)

Police don’t keep us safe, that we know. But who or what will? This is the question every politician — liberal or conservative —and many activists, refuse to ask for fear of being dismissed as naïve or, worse, “soft” on crime. But what’s softer than supporting police, an institution with no record of keeping working people safe?

Calls to abolish ICE, to be meaningful, must include calls to abolish local police too. The police is an institution organized around the use of violence for punishment and coercion overwhelmingly arrayed against poor communities of color. Abolition, not reform, is the solution to this problem. No more money for cops or reform. The money and energy wasted on police reform and police agencies would be better spent supporting community efforts at alternatives. Fewer cops and more emergency and transitional housing. Fewer cops and more support for institutions that serve (not arrest) people suffering mental health crises or drug addiction. Abolition ICE, yes, but don’t stop there."

these current marches and protests (and good on them, anyway) are anti-trump when O did much the same...is the message kinda: vote for dems? zeese and flowers had said that in the O days, it was mainly the immigrant community who'd protested rather than in these times. i'm a bit agnostic, but i hope they're not correct. not ice, but 'something that reflects our values™ while keeping the border...safe from criminals', they all say now; oy.

and yeah, some of it does look worse given the msm headlines, maddow crying, and the fact that this administration's full of open racists and racialists.

She is not going@Big Al
to vote to continue the war(s), nor start a "new" one.
It's a moot Dim talking point.
Congress no longer sends the military off to war.
The prez sends them.

#1.1.1 "I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place."

She has no clue. That's the same bullshit the dem party supporters used to justify Obama's wars against Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. and obviously Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Like blaming it on Bush and Obama was just trying to make it right.

up

7 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

Congress could take an active oversight role, investigating and even opposing what the military is doing, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did under Sen. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) during the Vietnam War.

If Congress doesn’t, it’s because its members of both parties don’t choose to.

I guess nowadays they’re all so busy soliciting campaign donations and otherwise feathering their own nest, they can’t be bothered.

She is not going#1.1.1.2
to vote to continue the war(s), nor start a "new" one.
It's a moot Dim talking point.
Congress no longer sends the military off to war.
The prez sends them.

Congress could take an active oversight role, investigating and even opposing what the military is doing, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did under Sen. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) during the Vietnam War.

If Congress doesn’t, it’s because its members of both parties don’t choose to.

I guess nowadays they’re all so busy soliciting campaign donations and otherwise feathering their own nest, they can’t be bothered.

@Wink
cares about wars and imperialism? Is that what the dem party strategists have concluded? Ya, because the dem party is one of the primary criminal enterprises that plan, approve, facilitate and administer U.S. imperialism. So they know what the people want don't they. Shit.
I get your priorities are about democratic party "victory" and not about the fucking issues that matter. You've made it clear you don't give a shit about war and that you think there's absolutely nothing your new favorite progressive hero democratic politicians can do about it.

District gives much#1.1.1.2.4.1.1
of a damn either. They didn't elect her to stop wars, any more than we did in my District.

#1.1.1.2.4.1.1.1 cares about wars and imperialism? Is that what the dem party strategists have concluded? Ya, because the dem party is one of the primary criminal enterprises that plan, approve, facilitate and administer U.S. imperialism. So they know what the people want don't they. Shit.
I get your priorities are about democratic party "victory" and not about the fucking issues that matter. You've made it clear you don't give a shit about war and that you think there's absolutely nothing your new favorite progressive hero democratic politicians can do about it.

number one issue@Big Al
up here. Or number two, or number 3. Dylan Ratigan barely mentioned it.
Nor I suspect was it the #1, #2 or #3 issue in AOC's NY-14 either.
Money issues topped the list up here, and "we" have a U.S. Army base (lest I remind, sending Troops™ to the M.E. and Afghanistan two, 3 times a year) literally in our back yard.
And I'm guessing it's going to be a non-issue until China or Putin drops a bomb on our asses, becuz nobody, really, pays any attention to the war(s). Nary a peep from protesters anywhere. And as sad and pathetic as that is I worry more about getting my bills paid on $2,000 /mo., and electing "more and better" Dims like AOC, replacing the dead wood we got in Washington today. I cheer AOC becuz the one "we" voted for up here - A corporate Dim - got more votes than the other 4 "more Librul" Dims combined. Including Ratigan, who finished a distant 2nd. So now I gotta go out and campaign for a corporate Dim (who would Not have won reelection to her County seat) to beat an intolerable KochBros corporate Repub who couldn't find her own district with Google Maps and a gps device. The war(s)? They happen over there somewhere, far far away. And like a lot of Americans, I just can't be bothered. Just the way the War Machine likes us, I suspect. Unencumbered. I got asked that at our Monthly MeetUp last night. The lady almost whispered it. (I forgot my damn hearing aid). what?? what about the war? what?? Oh!! What about the war! Sorry, can't hear. Well... I don't know, what do you think? {shrug} Pretty much what I think too. moving on...

#1.1.1.2.4.1.1.1 cares about wars and imperialism? Is that what the dem party strategists have concluded? Ya, because the dem party is one of the primary criminal enterprises that plan, approve, facilitate and administer U.S. imperialism. So they know what the people want don't they. Shit.
I get your priorities are about democratic party "victory" and not about the fucking issues that matter. You've made it clear you don't give a shit about war and that you think there's absolutely nothing your new favorite progressive hero democratic politicians can do about it.

up

0 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

there is an Obama vs Clinton backstory to AOC/Crowley. Whatever the details are, whoever's side she is/is not on, its important to me that that issue places AOC's candidacy smack in the middle of politics as usual in the Democratic Party.

This thread has been a great learning experience about AOC and NYC politics. I came in with naive opinions, and have been supplied with a lot of facts.

is in here, but would her own words to jeremy scahill be corroboration enough? (if the transcript is correct, anyway...)

"“But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that.”

“All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.”
So when I had these conversations — I think it’s important to echo that not all military actions are what you’re discussing. In terms of what you’re discussing, probably not. The only one that, I mean, even with the surge, with Obama’s surge, I think what he was trying to do was deal with this mess of going into Afghanistan in the first place. In a sense, there are some tough spots that you’re in where when you have boots on the ground, and you have those soldiers that are there, pulling out immediately sometimes isn’t the most stabilizing course of action. So I think there, maybe. But I don’t think that these drone strikes were just.”

and just below that entry was: ‘Happy Fourth of July! The Story of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Reveals the Power of Good News About “Democratic Renewal”, jon schwarz

there is an Obama vs Clinton backstory to AOC/Crowley. Whatever the details are, whoever's side she is/is not on, its important to me that that issue places AOC's candidacy smack in the middle of politics as usual in the Democratic Party.

This thread has been a great learning experience about AOC and NYC politics. I came in with naive opinions, and have been supplied with a lot of facts.

@arendt
to me it was obvious. She included the catch words for the dem party supporters, like "peace", but overall it was clear she didn't even fucking write it and it included the typical dem party caveats about terrorism and "unjust" wars (there are no just wars). It was a boilerplate bullshit that was put it to appease because they learned from Bernie not paying enough attention to "foreign policy", i.e., imperialism.
Her words since then bear that out.

Actually I knew as soon as I heard her name next to the big "D".

But I better not say more, the purity police will pounce. Reminds me of this, first time I experienced that "force" was here:

@Big Al@Big Al
Response to invasion? response to another country declaring war?

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

#1.1 to me it was obvious. She included the catch words for the dem party supporters, like "peace", but overall it was clear she didn't even fucking write it and it included the typical dem party caveats about terrorism and "unjust" wars (there are no just wars). It was a boilerplate bullshit that was put it to appease because they learned from Bernie not paying enough attention to "foreign policy", i.e., imperialism.
Her words since then bear that out.

Actually I knew as soon as I heard her name next to the big "D".

But I better not say more, the purity police will pounce. Reminds me of this, first time I experienced that "force" was here:

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

This.

Now, Big Al's point that profiteers and egotistical criminals often manipulate nations into wars is still quite valid. But all of those in our world doing this aren't necessarily Americans. The uber-filthy rich and uber-powerful of other nations do this, too.

It's just like the old adage about "keeping the Sabbath": all must so that all may. Giving up warfare is exactly the same: until all do so, honestly, none can; and war will remain an irremovable part of Statecraft as it is now.

#1.1.2#1.1.2
Response to invasion? response to another country declaring war?

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

up

8 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

Humans round the globe can't even agree on what day the "Sabbath" is, let alone how to "remember" it and "keep it holy". Is it Friday (Muslims), Saturday (Jews/7th Day Adventists), or Sunday (most Christian denominations), or some other day (various minority sects), or any/every day(non-Abrahamic religions)?

It's actually a lot easier to agree on what "war" is - but not on what to do about it.

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

This.

Now, Big Al's point that profiteers and egotistical criminals often manipulate nations into wars is still quite valid. But all of those in our world doing this aren't necessarily Americans. The uber-filthy rich and uber-powerful of other nations do this, too.

It's just like the old adage about "keeping the Sabbath": all must so that all may. Giving up warfare is exactly the same: until all do so, honestly, none can; and war will remain an irremovable part of Statecraft as it is now.

Humans round the globe can't even agree on what day the "Sabbath" is, let alone how to "remember" it and "keep it holy". Is it Friday (Muslims), Saturday (Jews/7th Day Adventists), or Sunday (most Christian denominations), or some other day (various minority sects), or any/every day(non-Abrahamic religions)?

It's actually a lot easier to agree on what "war" is - but not on what to do about it.

Whose "Sabbath"?
Humans round the globe can't even agree on what day the "Sabbath" is, let alone how to "remember" it and "keep it holy". Is it Friday (Muslims), Saturday (Jews/7th Day Adventists), or Sunday (most Christian denominations), or some other day (various minority sects), or any/every day(non-Abrahamic religions)?

Actually, I was only talking about "the Sabbath" in the sense of a day of rest from servile work. In other words, "all must that all may" in the sense that once anybody starts working 7 days a week, pretty soon we all end up working 7 days a week, will or nill us. (Which should sound familiar to many of us even now!) As part of my point, I ask you to consider how hard Anglo-American labor unions had to struggle to get ordinary workers a day off from work to attend to their own needs as well as one for their God. (The modern concept of the "weekend".)

I want humankind to take a permanent Sabbatical from war. In order for any to be able to do this, every nation on Earth must join the Sabbatical simultaneously and honestly. One nation still waging war is to this "Sabbath" what the one working 7 days a week is to the other kind.

Humans round the globe can't even agree on what day the "Sabbath" is, let alone how to "remember" it and "keep it holy". Is it Friday (Muslims), Saturday (Jews/7th Day Adventists), or Sunday (most Christian denominations), or some other day (various minority sects), or any/every day(non-Abrahamic religions)?

It's actually a lot easier to agree on what "war" is - but not on what to do about it.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

@thanatokephaloides
the one Grover Cleveland wasn’t willing to fight, even though his State Department recommended it: namely, using force against the bogus “Republic of Hawaii” sugar-planter putschists and restoring independence and sovereignty to Hawaii in perpetuity, and Queen Liliuokalani to her throne.

The “just” timeline is the one where Hawaii never becomes part of the U.S. at all, where plantation owners don’t get to bring in a huge labor force from afar, and the Hawaiian people are not marginalized and reduced to a minority in their own land.

Annexing Hawaii against the will of her people blows “just” and “justice” out of the water for all time. After that, it’s just amoral power grabs, military-base building, and population replacement by competing empires.

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

This.

Now, Big Al's point that profiteers and egotistical criminals often manipulate nations into wars is still quite valid. But all of those in our world doing this aren't necessarily Americans. The uber-filthy rich and uber-powerful of other nations do this, too.

It's just like the old adage about "keeping the Sabbath": all must so that all may. Giving up warfare is exactly the same: until all do so, honestly, none can; and war will remain an irremovable part of Statecraft as it is now.

Never mind that the REAL Hawaiian “just war” would have been
the one Grover Cleveland wasn’t willing to fight, even though his State Department recommended it: namely, using force against the bogus “Republic of Hawaii” sugar-planter putschists and restoring independence and sovereignty to Hawaii in perpetuity, and Queen Liliuokalani to her throne.

No joke there, lotlizard!

#1.1.2.1.1
the one Grover Cleveland wasn’t willing to fight, even though his State Department recommended it: namely, using force against the bogus “Republic of Hawaii” sugar-planter putschists and restoring independence and sovereignty to Hawaii in perpetuity, and Queen Liliuokalani to her throne.

The “just” timeline is the one where Hawaii never becomes part of the U.S. at all, where plantation owners don’t get to bring in a huge labor force from afar, and the Hawaiian people are not marginalized and reduced to a minority in their own land.

Annexing Hawaii against the will of her people blows “just” and “justice” out of the water for all time. After that, it’s just amoral power grabs, military-base building, and population replacement by competing empires.

up

3 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

This.

Now, Big Al's point that profiteers and egotistical criminals often manipulate nations into wars is still quite valid. But all of those in our world doing this aren't necessarily Americans. The uber-filthy rich and uber-powerful of other nations do this, too.

It's just like the old adage about "keeping the Sabbath": all must so that all may. Giving up warfare is exactly the same: until all do so, honestly, none can; and war will remain an irremovable part of Statecraft as it is now.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

World War II wasn't any different. I know people like to point to WWII as their justification that some war is warranted, but it wasn't. The evidence is clear on why WWII occurred and it wasn't for our freedom or for defending our land.

#1.1.2#1.1.2
Response to invasion? response to another country declaring war?

You thought we should have just withdrawn from Hawaii? on Dec 8 1941? Or not offered any resistance to the Japanese invasion force?

Sometimes in life you have to fight, even if you didn't pick the fight. That's why DoD should truly be the Defense Department and not the War Department that it was called originally (and still is, in truth).

@Big Al
Evacuated everyone in Hawaii? Sent a note of apology to the Emperor when his ambassador delivered the declaration of war? Told Hitler we were sorry and won't do it again when Germany joined Japan? Yes, our hands weren't clean, but Imperial Japan were Imperialists and committed atrocities in China and the Philippines. Yes, the US was wrong to intern US citizens of Japanese descent (interning or expelling enemy nationals is common) but it hardly compares with beheading contests in Nanjing and the Philippine Death March, nor all the ordinary Chinese massacred by the Imperial army.

What specifically would you have done? Nothing?

#1.1.2.1 "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

World War II wasn't any different. I know people like to point to WWII as their justification that some war is warranted, but it wasn't. The evidence is clear on why WWII occurred and it wasn't for our freedom or for defending our land.

your question is the ultimate one. There are no good wars, but once it's on, it's on.

I read the first volume of Churchill's memoirs of WWII recently, and right at the beginning he nails the fact that WWII was the most horrific catastrophe in human history and the most preventable. And he names the cause: U.S. loans. He doesn't elaborate, he leaves that for future generations to work out, or for classified documents to emerge after the perps were dead, and then he spends four volumes describing the catastrophe.

But yes, once you've built a war machine sufficient to be a threat to the world, even in the midst of a worldwide depression, somehow coming up with the money to build battleships, high-tech tanks, mines, magnetic mines, anti-magnetic mines, submarines, guided missiles, attack weapons of every kind, and an arsenal of throw-away-able soldiers, you have made every other nation incapable of being pacifist. It's either fight or die.

Realizing that our military industrial complex is a private multinational industry that arms everyone is the first step to putting war out of business.

I say this as a pacifist, we will never end war until we stop funding it and underwriting all risks for a set of companies that commits treason against the United States.

#1.1.2.1.2
Evacuated everyone in Hawaii? Sent a note of apology to the Emperor when his ambassador delivered the declaration of war? Told Hitler we were sorry and won't do it again when Germany joined Japan? Yes, our hands weren't clean, but Imperial Japan were Imperialists and committed atrocities in China and the Philippines. Yes, the US was wrong to intern US citizens of Japanese descent (interning or expelling enemy nationals is common) but it hardly compares with beheading contests in Nanjing and the Philippine Death March, nor all the ordinary Chinese massacred by the Imperial army.

your question is the ultimate one. There are no good wars, but once it's on, it's on.

I read the first volume of Churchill's memoirs of WWII recently, and right at the beginning he nails the fact that WWII was the most horrific catastrophe in human history and the most preventable. And he names the cause: U.S. loans. He doesn't elaborate, he leaves that for future generations to work out, or for classified documents to emerge after the perps were dead, and then he spends four volumes describing the catastrophe.

But yes, once you've built a war machine sufficient to be a threat to the world, even in the midst of a worldwide depression, somehow coming up with the money to build battleships, high-tech tanks, mines, magnetic mines, anti-magnetic mines, submarines, guided missiles, attack weapons of every kind, and an arsenal of throw-away-able soldiers, you have made every other nation incapable of being pacifist. It's either fight or die.

Realizing that our military industrial complex is a private multinational industry that arms everyone is the first step to putting war out of business.

I say this as a pacifist, we will never end war until we stop funding it and underwriting all risks for a set of companies that commits treason against the United States.

But it seems to me a big part of Epplings argument, once you scratch at the veneer, is that she is too smart and pretty.

She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image.

Now she may turn out to be just another corporate Dem. But even I am not so cynical to believe that she must be a mainstream power broker when she hasn't had a chance to do anything except run for office.

That's why I keep asking for corroboration about those foreign policy positions. I don't want this thread to be about her physiogomy.

I recall that her "platform" had a widely quoted section about being for peace, and for less war. I don't see how to square that with Russiagate and regime change Venezuela.

But it seems to me a big part of Epplings argument, once you scratch at the veneer, is that she is too smart and pretty.

She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image.

Now she may turn out to be just another corporate Dem. But even I am not so cynical to believe that she must be a mainstream power broker when she hasn't had a chance to do anything except run for office.

@Blueslide
presenting personal impressions and half **sed opinions as if they were some kind of startling insight. Consider the source.

If AOC is an elitist plant, the planters don't seem to have been supporting her with very much funding. I do think that, once she had won, the warmongers showed up next day in force to herd her into their corral.

It is up to 1. her future constituents, and 2. the DSA and other peaceniks to keep her on the path of righteousness. I suggest the tell, the sign that any candidate has gone over to the dark side, is when they stop holding town halls or other events where real live voters can question them.

But it seems to me a big part of Epplings argument, once you scratch at the veneer, is that she is too smart and pretty.

She strikes me, personally, as culturally a Westchester County product, not the Bronx. And I guess I find her a bit too telegenic, too perfect an image.

Now she may turn out to be just another corporate Dem. But even I am not so cynical to believe that she must be a mainstream power broker when she hasn't had a chance to do anything except run for office.

I already wrote about the CIA Dems - especially Jeff Beals - who downplay their security connections. Those 100 candidates speak to the massive resources available for fake Dems, and to the level of obfuscation.

While what you say is probably true: she was coopted the minute she won; who is to say that there was not a parallel effort to the barely sheep-dipped CIA Dems. That effort would create a "legend" of an earnest, hard working leftie with impeccable IP connections.

I recognize how parAnoid that sounds. It's just that, with the immense financial, media, and intraparty resource imbalance, there is plenty of money for stealth candidates.

Bottom line: I still don't buy her "street cred". Worked for Teddy, but she winds up bartending. Sounds like a movie script. And she is definitely on board w zRussiagate, and a big defender of Obama. All not good things.

#2 presenting personal impressions and half **sed opinions as if they were some kind of startling insight. Consider the source.

If AOC is an elitist plant, the planters don't seem to have been supporting her with very much funding. I do think that, once she had won, the warmongers showed up next day in force to herd her into their corral.

It is up to 1. her future constituents, and 2. the DSA and other peaceniks to keep her on the path of righteousness. I suggest the tell, the sign that any candidate has gone over to the dark side, is when they stop holding town halls or other events where real live voters can question them.

Typical Counterpunch, presenting personal impressions and half **sed opinions as if they were some kind of startling insight. Consider the source.

One grano salis, coming right up!

It is up to 1. her future constituents, and 2. the DSA and other peaceniks to keep her on the path of righteousness. I suggest the tell, the sign that any candidate has gone over to the dark side, is when they stop holding town halls or other events where real live voters can question them.

Or holding them, but playing funny little games as to just who would be permitted to attend.

#2 presenting personal impressions and half **sed opinions as if they were some kind of startling insight. Consider the source.

If AOC is an elitist plant, the planters don't seem to have been supporting her with very much funding. I do think that, once she had won, the warmongers showed up next day in force to herd her into their corral.

It is up to 1. her future constituents, and 2. the DSA and other peaceniks to keep her on the path of righteousness. I suggest the tell, the sign that any candidate has gone over to the dark side, is when they stop holding town halls or other events where real live voters can question them.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

And I am not a purist myself. However, the blessing of the corporate media always makes me suspicious.

I continue to ask for someone to support or refute the charge that she is already on the Russiagate, overthrow Maduro bandwagon. The Maduro part would be especially telling (and offensive), since she is Latina.

I haven't written her off yet, but I haven't embraced her either.

No one is ever good enough or pure enough to be supported (as long as they have any chance of making any kind of difference).

Powerless victims, oh that's different - behold the wringing of hands and the buckets of tears, and the demands for Action Now.

But ask these caterwaulers to get out and shake the bushes for anyone actually in politics, and they have 1001 excuses to sit on their hands and do nothing.

Here’s an interview she did a month before the election, when she was still a long shot. The article is from after her victory, so it seems maybe they sat on the interview until after she was a new superstar. It’s very long, covers a lot of ground. Near the end they finally discuss foreign policy, a little.

So when you kind of drill down — one, we need to figure out how to approach trade in a way that creates more stable economic outcomes for families across the world. But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that. We see that, for example, because of the domestic role that the Trump administration is playing in this protectionist ante up ,we see China — this has been happening before Trump — but now especially during this administration, they are now starting to fill that vacuum of power that the United States formerly held. So I think that from our vantage point, within the United States we have to address those two things. Of course we have continuing developments in the Middle East. We have what just happened in Palestine, and so on.

I think at the end of the day, a lot of this has to do with what’s going on with the global concentration of wealth. All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.

I also think that, for me, deciphering her “purity” is not the point at all. She could be pure as the driven snow, it wouldn’t matter. She did say, this is on a recorded interview on CNN, that she is a proud democrat, and she will support the next democratic nominee for president “without question” — obviously meaning, even if that nominee is Hillary Clinton, or another warmonger, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be all in for them.

She may be allowed to vote no against some issues that would be uncomfortable for her, but the party will still do what they want. She also said in that interview that one of her hopes to do in Congress is get together a group of progressive representatives... um, did anyone tell her about the progressive caucus they already have? The one that vowed to hold out for a public option in the ACA, which is why we now have that... oh, wait.

My feeling is, AOC’s “purity” or lack thereof is basically irrelevant. She’s a loyal democrat, by her own words. We should all know what that means.

And I am not a purist myself. However, the blessing of the corporate media always makes me suspicious.

I continue to ask for someone to support or refute the charge that she is already on the Russiagate, overthrow Maduro bandwagon. The Maduro part would be especially telling (and offensive), since she is Latina.

Here’s an interview she did a month before the election, when she was still a long shot. The article is from after her victory, so it seems maybe they sat on the interview until after she was a new superstar. It’s very long, covers a lot of ground. Near the end they finally discuss foreign policy, a little.

So when you kind of drill down — one, we need to figure out how to approach trade in a way that creates more stable economic outcomes for families across the world. But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that. We see that, for example, because of the domestic role that the Trump administration is playing in this protectionist ante up ,we see China — this has been happening before Trump — but now especially during this administration, they are now starting to fill that vacuum of power that the United States formerly held. So I think that from our vantage point, within the United States we have to address those two things. Of course we have continuing developments in the Middle East. We have what just happened in Palestine, and so on.

I think at the end of the day, a lot of this has to do with what’s going on with the global concentration of wealth. All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.

I also think that, for me, deciphering her “purity” is not the point at all. She could be pure as the driven snow, it wouldn’t matter. She did say, this is on a recorded interview on CNN, that she is a proud democrat, and she will support the next democratic nominee for president “without question” — obviously meaning, even if that nominee is Hillary Clinton, or another warmonger, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be all in for them.

She may be allowed to vote no against some issues that would be uncomfortable for her, but the party will still do what they want. She also said in that interview that one of her hopes to do in Congress is get together a group of progressive representatives... um, did anyone tell her about the progressive caucus they already have? The one that vowed to hold out for a public option in the ACA, which is why we now have that... oh, wait.

My feeling is, AOC’s “purity” or lack thereof is basically irrelevant. She’s a loyal democrat, by her own words. We should all know what that means.

Here’s an interview she did a month before the election, when she was still a long shot. The article is from after her victory, so it seems maybe they sat on the interview until after she was a new superstar. It’s very long, covers a lot of ground. Near the end they finally discuss foreign policy, a little.

So when you kind of drill down — one, we need to figure out how to approach trade in a way that creates more stable economic outcomes for families across the world. But then secondly, I think you have some of these geopolitical realities of — we now have Russia playing a very aggressive role in other nations. We have what we saw in Europe ahead of the French elections where, thankfully, they had planned for a cyberattack, but we have a lot of the destabilization of our political institutions as well. We see the role that Russia is playing in that. We see that, for example, because of the domestic role that the Trump administration is playing in this protectionist ante up ,we see China — this has been happening before Trump — but now especially during this administration, they are now starting to fill that vacuum of power that the United States formerly held. So I think that from our vantage point, within the United States we have to address those two things. Of course we have continuing developments in the Middle East. We have what just happened in Palestine, and so on.

I think at the end of the day, a lot of this has to do with what’s going on with the global concentration of wealth. All of these things tie back to that. You look at what’s happening in these FBI investigations and the things we’re finding and lo and behold, it’s this petrol Russian oligarch is tied directly financially to what happened in the 2016 U.S. elections.

I also think that, for me, deciphering her “purity” is not the point at all. She could be pure as the driven snow, it wouldn’t matter. She did say, this is on a recorded interview on CNN, that she is a proud democrat, and she will support the next democratic nominee for president “without question” — obviously meaning, even if that nominee is Hillary Clinton, or another warmonger, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be all in for them.

She may be allowed to vote no against some issues that would be uncomfortable for her, but the party will still do what they want. She also said in that interview that one of her hopes to do in Congress is get together a group of progressive representatives... um, did anyone tell her about the progressive caucus they already have? The one that vowed to hold out for a public option in the ACA, which is why we now have that... oh, wait.

My feeling is, AOC’s “purity” or lack thereof is basically irrelevant. She’s a loyal democrat, by her own words. We should all know what that means.

@arendt
does that mean you really haven't written off the democratic party? I've seen a lot of talk here that people need to "give her a chance" first. Like what does that mean, give her a chance to do what? A 28 year old is going to reform the democratic party?

Like the author of the counterpunch essay states, "why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt?"

I'd have to agree with that. The peculiar thing is why so many "demexiters" on this site continue to support the next new "progressive heroes" of the democratic party. They didn't seem to do that after 8 years of Obama, it was only until the Sanders allowed himself to get the shaft.

And I am not a purist myself. However, the blessing of the corporate media always makes me suspicious.

I continue to ask for someone to support or refute the charge that she is already on the Russiagate, overthrow Maduro bandwagon. The Maduro part would be especially telling (and offensive), since she is Latina.

Of course, the Democratic Party is worthless. Didn't vote for them in 2016, and will never again.

That said, the DP is one of the only places that the corporate media gives airtime to. So, if a voice should appear in the DP saying things I want said, I might listen and tell other to do so too. It was early in the thread when I said I hadn't made up my mind.

However, from what I read later in the thread, the socialism is just window dressing, just a costume she puts on, just virtue signaling. She's just another player. So, I probably won't be listening or telling others - because I'm sure she will be as lofty and aspirational as Obama, with even less results because she is one Congress-critter, not President.

I wouldn't want you to think I'd gone soft on the DP.

#3.1 does that mean you really haven't written off the democratic party? I've seen a lot of talk here that people need to "give her a chance" first. Like what does that mean, give her a chance to do what? A 28 year old is going to reform the democratic party?

Like the author of the counterpunch essay states, "why would one want to give a candidate FOR this utterly corrupt party the benefit of the doubt?"

I'd have to agree with that. The peculiar thing is why so many "demexiters" on this site continue to support the next new "progressive heroes" of the democratic party. They didn't seem to do that after 8 years of Obama, it was only until the Sanders allowed himself to get the shaft.

@arendt
I think it tells us more about the media than about AOC.
The media profit from eyeballs. Their function is propaganda, but they are expected to pay their own way.
AOC's campaign happened outside the media bubble. On election night the talking heads were gobsmacked -- they had never heard of her but she won without them. She won an election without paying big media for advertising and without being indebted to big media for promotion. That's bad for business.
The day big media is irrelevant is the day they are out of business.
They need AOC, she doesn't need them.
So she made the rounds and got her 3 days of fame. We'll see if she's still a media darling after six years in office.

And I am not a purist myself. However, the blessing of the corporate media always makes me suspicious.

I continue to ask for someone to support or refute the charge that she is already on the Russiagate, overthrow Maduro bandwagon. The Maduro part would be especially telling (and offensive), since she is Latina.

The media was shocked at its failure to notice a big (in percentage) upset. They needed to show that they were doing some kind of job. Besides, the primary was over; and she is a shoo-in to win the general. So, give the photogenic, articulate woman her five minutes of fame and see how she behaves. If she started frothing at the socialist mouth, we never would have heard of her again. Instead, she immediately starts trimming her sails. (Of course, the media covers that as "tacking to the center for the general election".)

Bottom line: I withdraw my suspicions based on corporate media coverage. You have convinced me.

#3.1
I think it tells us more about the media than about AOC.
The media profit from eyeballs. Their function is propaganda, but they are expected to pay their own way.
AOC's campaign happened outside the media bubble. On election night the talking heads were gobsmacked -- they had never heard of her but she won without them. She won an election without paying big media for advertising and without being indebted to big media for promotion. That's bad for business.
The day big media is irrelevant is the day they are out of business.
They need AOC, she doesn't need them.
So she made the rounds and got her 3 days of fame. We'll see if she's still a media darling after six years in office.

@WoodsDweller
and guess what? The media (and the establishment whose mouthpiece they are) still hate him and the feeling is mutual.

At least that’s consistent.

Now, what’s going to happen to AOC? Her value is that, with her policies and goals, she is supposedly against the establishment. Is she really against the establishment? Well, the establishment seems to think so to the extent that it worked against her — trying to ignore her and backing her opponent all the way.

If the media, speaking for the establishment, suddenly warms to her and embraces her — unlike the many heroic but ultimately tragic and quixotic reformer figures who have gone before — what might that be a sign of?

#3.1
I think it tells us more about the media than about AOC.
The media profit from eyeballs. Their function is propaganda, but they are expected to pay their own way.
AOC's campaign happened outside the media bubble. On election night the talking heads were gobsmacked -- they had never heard of her but she won without them. She won an election without paying big media for advertising and without being indebted to big media for promotion. That's bad for business.
The day big media is irrelevant is the day they are out of business.
They need AOC, she doesn't need them.
So she made the rounds and got her 3 days of fame. We'll see if she's still a media darling after six years in office.

@lotlizard
the inner Clinton Cabal began trembling with mortal fear that their #PiedPiperStrategy, revealed in the #PodestaEmails, was backfiring big-time.

The collusion of the Media and the DNC clowns are 110% responsible for Drumpf.

Had they honored their civic duty as the crucial Fourth Estate of Democracy and properly vetted the criminal business fraud, shady asshole, racist bigoted misogynist for who he really was - instead of elevating the barking clown snakeoil salesman/former reality TV star (oh how Americans just LOVE anyone whose appeared on teevee - "hey, they're Famous. Must be smart and successful, just like I'd like to be someday, when I just pull up them thar bootstraps after I set down this darn remote!"), he'd have been dead in his tracks right out of the gate.

But because the tv business model has been decimated by their own failure to prepare for the internet, they've been so hard up for cash for so long and felt a windfall in front of their faces. On top of which, they don't believe an emphasis on real investigative journalism can make money (which is arguable; I think it can). So they followed his every move, to the infamous extent of showing the Orange Buffoon's empty podium while Bernie Sanders had just upended another Dem Primary, with the craning neck of a morbid car wreck watcher. Remember Les Moograves of CBS? His moment of candor about Trump's effect on his networks bottom line was an insight to what the entire MSM was acting upon.

Only after the cowardly MSM was hounded by the Clinton Cabal and their sycophants to stop showing him uncritically was there a desperate full court press to upend him. But by then it was perceived as such and only served to strengthen his base of support. He then was also able to campaign with yet another aspect of Bernie Sanders campaign (e.g. economic populism, anti-Wall St rhetoric, etc), which was a distrust (Bernie's was more a very critical eye toward) of the media, a very real stance for both the anti-establishment Left and Right.

The media loved Trump and still do, no matter how much they seem to hammer him. It's all about advertising revenue, which comes from eyes on their "product," which hits a zenith when you titillate relentlessly. The long-term disastrous effects of this are the outrage burnout. After so much non-stop Drumpf outrage and suspense the money and fame-obsessed moron has turned over the keys of governing to the worst aspects of RW fascists who are pillaging as much as they can get their hands on before it's discovered how bad the damage is, under cover of a growing nationalism and police state.

#3.1.3
and guess what? The media (and the establishment whose mouthpiece they are) still hate him and the feeling is mutual.

At least that’s consistent.

Now, what’s going to happen to AOC? Her value is that, with her policies and goals, she is supposedly against the establishment. Is she really against the establishment? Well, the establishment seems to think so to the extent that it worked against her — trying to ignore her and backing her opponent all the way.

If the media, speaking for the establishment, suddenly warms to her and embraces her — unlike the many heroic but ultimately tragic and quixotic reformer figures who have gone before — what might that be a sign of?

@Mark from Queens
You’re right, now that you remind me, they did turn 180 degrees without missing a beat — from Pied Pipering the primary, to Access Hollywooding the general.

#3.1.3.2
the inner Clinton Cabal began trembling with mortal fear that their #PiedPiperStrategy, revealed in the #PodestaEmails, was backfiring big-time.

The collusion of the Media and the DNC clowns are 110% responsible for Drumpf.

Had they honored their civic duty as the crucial Fourth Estate of Democracy and properly vetted the criminal business fraud, shady asshole, racist bigoted misogynist for who he really was - instead of elevating the barking clown snakeoil salesman/former reality TV star (oh how Americans just LOVE anyone whose appeared on teevee - "hey, they're Famous. Must be smart and successful, just like I'd like to be someday, when I just pull up them thar bootstraps after I set down this darn remote!"), he'd have been dead in his tracks right out of the gate.

But because the tv business model has been decimated by their own failure to prepare for the internet, they've been so hard up for cash for so long and felt a windfall in front of their faces. On top of which, they don't believe an emphasis on real investigative journalism can make money (which is arguable; I think it can). So they followed his every move, to the infamous extent of showing the Orange Buffoon's empty podium while Bernie Sanders had just upended another Dem Primary, with the craning neck of a morbid car wreck watcher. Remember Les Moograves of CBS? His moment of candor about Trump's effect on his networks bottom line was an insight to what the entire MSM was acting upon.

Only after the cowardly MSM was hounded by the Clinton Cabal and their sycophants to stop showing him uncritically was there a desperate full court press to upend him. But by then it was perceived as such and only served to strengthen his base of support. He then was also able to campaign with yet another aspect of Bernie Sanders campaign (e.g. economic populism, anti-Wall St rhetoric, etc), which was a distrust (Bernie's was more a very critical eye toward) of the media, a very real stance for both the anti-establishment Left and Right.

The media loved Trump and still do, no matter how much they seem to hammer him. It's all about advertising revenue, which comes from eyes on their "product," which hits a zenith when you titillate relentlessly. The long-term disastrous effects of this are the outrage burnout. After so much non-stop Drumpf outrage and suspense the money and fame-obsessed moron has turned over the keys of governing to the worst aspects of RW fascists who are pillaging as much as they can get their hands on before it's discovered how bad the damage is, under cover of a growing nationalism and police state.

@Mark from Queens
Trump has been manipulating big media his whole career. That damned Twitter account of his reaches millions.
Political parties exercise power three ways: control of money (mostly by being gatekeepers for the big donors), control of media access (through being gatekeepers to favored media celebrities seeking access), and control of the primary rules.
Trump managed to get the nomination by self-funding to some extent, and I'm sure many of the big donors would take his calls already, even if they wanted to wait until he looked like a winner before giving money. He also had non-traditional media access via his Twitter account and is a master at manipulating big media. They couldn't afford not to cover him for their own self-interest.
So he steamrolled through the primaries and the general with the party running to catch up.
This is what AOC did on a much smaller scale. She now has a very active Twitter account which will help insulate her from reliance on big media.
Imma gonna say something controversial. Are you ready?
FUCK THE TV DEBATES.
That's big media, that's old campaigning. It's also targeting older voters who still watch that 1950's technology from their youth, and who made their allegiance to one party or the other a generation ago. Almost no swing voters in the TV audience.
Don't bend over backwards to make it on the debates, that just gives power to the party. Build your campaign until big media begs you to appear on the debates.
Want to conform to the status quo? Campaign on big media. Want to win in this new environment? Let big media come to you.

#3.1.3.2
the inner Clinton Cabal began trembling with mortal fear that their #PiedPiperStrategy, revealed in the #PodestaEmails, was backfiring big-time.

The collusion of the Media and the DNC clowns are 110% responsible for Drumpf.

Had they honored their civic duty as the crucial Fourth Estate of Democracy and properly vetted the criminal business fraud, shady asshole, racist bigoted misogynist for who he really was - instead of elevating the barking clown snakeoil salesman/former reality TV star (oh how Americans just LOVE anyone whose appeared on teevee - "hey, they're Famous. Must be smart and successful, just like I'd like to be someday, when I just pull up them thar bootstraps after I set down this darn remote!"), he'd have been dead in his tracks right out of the gate.

But because the tv business model has been decimated by their own failure to prepare for the internet, they've been so hard up for cash for so long and felt a windfall in front of their faces. On top of which, they don't believe an emphasis on real investigative journalism can make money (which is arguable; I think it can). So they followed his every move, to the infamous extent of showing the Orange Buffoon's empty podium while Bernie Sanders had just upended another Dem Primary, with the craning neck of a morbid car wreck watcher. Remember Les Moograves of CBS? His moment of candor about Trump's effect on his networks bottom line was an insight to what the entire MSM was acting upon.

Only after the cowardly MSM was hounded by the Clinton Cabal and their sycophants to stop showing him uncritically was there a desperate full court press to upend him. But by then it was perceived as such and only served to strengthen his base of support. He then was also able to campaign with yet another aspect of Bernie Sanders campaign (e.g. economic populism, anti-Wall St rhetoric, etc), which was a distrust (Bernie's was more a very critical eye toward) of the media, a very real stance for both the anti-establishment Left and Right.

The media loved Trump and still do, no matter how much they seem to hammer him. It's all about advertising revenue, which comes from eyes on their "product," which hits a zenith when you titillate relentlessly. The long-term disastrous effects of this are the outrage burnout. After so much non-stop Drumpf outrage and suspense the money and fame-obsessed moron has turned over the keys of governing to the worst aspects of RW fascists who are pillaging as much as they can get their hands on before it's discovered how bad the damage is, under cover of a growing nationalism and police state.

Yes! Who can stand to watch them? Are they really debates? Ted Cruz? Jeb Bush? Yikes! I truly agree, and I felt strongly that Sanders could have won without the so-called debates. He could have won with his small grassroots donations, his big personal appearances, and his online messages. He didn't need the Democratic Party. It needed him.

The mainstream media are kaput. The only thing keeping them afloat are their defense stock earnings. But unlike those of us whose pensions are kept afloat by defense stocks, the mainstream media are truly earning them. They're creating the false narratives that fuel a socialism for the ruthless.

#3.1.3.2.1
Trump has been manipulating big media his whole career. That damned Twitter account of his reaches millions.
Political parties exercise power three ways: control of money (mostly by being gatekeepers for the big donors), control of media access (through being gatekeepers to favored media celebrities seeking access), and control of the primary rules.
Trump managed to get the nomination by self-funding to some extent, and I'm sure many of the big donors would take his calls already, even if they wanted to wait until he looked like a winner before giving money. He also had non-traditional media access via his Twitter account and is a master at manipulating big media. They couldn't afford not to cover him for their own self-interest.
So he steamrolled through the primaries and the general with the party running to catch up.
This is what AOC did on a much smaller scale. She now has a very active Twitter account which will help insulate her from reliance on big media.
Imma gonna say something controversial. Are you ready?
FUCK THE TV DEBATES.
That's big media, that's old campaigning. It's also targeting older voters who still watch that 1950's technology from their youth, and who made their allegiance to one party or the other a generation ago. Almost no swing voters in the TV audience.
Don't bend over backwards to make it on the debates, that just gives power to the party. Build your campaign until big media begs you to appear on the debates.
Want to conform to the status quo? Campaign on big media. Want to win in this new environment? Let big media come to you.

Debating used to require training in logic, encyclopedic knowledge of the area being debated, and willingness to abide by the rules. It used to have one topic, instead of a smorgasbord of topics, selected by the moderator as a form of selective "gotcha".

I agree. Today's debate formats are a sad joke. An insult to logical thinking.

It all started with Gerald Ford's gaffe about Eastern Europe. At that point, under the rules I laid out above, it was clear that Ford was not too bright. But today, people can make outrageous claims and bullshit through the pathetic rebuttals allowed.

I haven't watched debates since Obama/Romney. Actually, both of them sorta played by the old rules, so it was interesting, in an academic way.

Yes! Who can stand to watch them? Are they really debates? Ted Cruz? Jeb Bush? Yikes! I truly agree, and I felt strongly that Sanders could have won without the so-called debates. He could have won with his small grassroots donations, his big personal appearances, and his online messages. He didn't need the Democratic Party. It needed him.

The mainstream media are kaput. The only thing keeping them afloat are their defense stock earnings. But unlike those of us whose pensions are kept afloat by defense stocks, the mainstream media are truly earning them. They're creating the false narratives that fuel a socialism for the ruthless.

@arendt
If you have to lead Presidential candidates away in handcuffs to prevent them from participating in the debate, your debate is a worthless pile of rotting tripe that doesn't deserve the name. Closer to bad pro wrestling booking than anything else.

Debating used to require training in logic, encyclopedic knowledge of the area being debated, and willingness to abide by the rules. It used to have one topic, instead of a smorgasbord of topics, selected by the moderator as a form of selective "gotcha".

I agree. Today's debate formats are a sad joke. An insult to logical thinking.

It all started with Gerald Ford's gaffe about Eastern Europe. At that point, under the rules I laid out above, it was clear that Ford was not too bright. But today, people can make outrageous claims and bullshit through the pathetic rebuttals allowed.

I haven't watched debates since Obama/Romney. Actually, both of them sorta played by the old rules, so it was interesting, in an academic way.

up

4 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

As I said, AOC is "the hook", but the meat of the article is a lengthy description of why today's Democratic Party is worthless to the left. They are part of the bipartisan neoliberal/neocon ruling class.

Even if AOC is genuine, she is going to be the court jester. Tolerated for her leftish positions, but not taken seriously. If she is genuine, but already co-opted on foreign policy, she is just another worthless Dem.

No one is ever good enough or pure enough to be supported (as long as they have any chance of making any kind of difference).

Powerless victims, oh that's different - behold the wringing of hands and the buckets of tears, and the demands for Action Now.

But ask these caterwaulers to get out and shake the bushes for anyone actually in politics, and they have 1001 excuses to sit on their hands and do nothing.

As I said, AOC is "the hook", but the meat of the article is a lengthy description of why today's Democratic Party is worthless to the left. They are part of the bipartisan neoliberal/neocon ruling class.

Even if AOC is genuine, she is going to be the court jester. Tolerated for her leftish positions, but not taken seriously. If she is genuine, but already co-opted on foreign policy, she is just another worthless Dem.

Then some switch got thrown and she was pushing her Ukrainian background and saying the Nazis deserved some respect (can't remember exactly what the topic was, but she was trying to rehabilitate the Nazis in order to bolster the Ukranian neo-Nazis.

I think anyone who stays in Washington (and staying means collecting campaign funds) winds up coopted or sold out. The problem isn't term limits; its money.

It appears to me that all of us here at C99 want the same outcome: an actual democracy, run by, and for, the people.

Personally, that means that I would enthusiastically shake the bushes for TRUE changemakers -- those willing to operate outside the duopoly's stranglehold -- if we only had a framework for this sort of activism.

As I said earlier, we ain't got time for within-the-duopoly incrementalism anymore. We need to change the rules of the game. Otherwise, we're never going to win.

No one is ever good enough or pure enough to be supported (as long as they have any chance of making any kind of difference).

Powerless victims, oh that's different - behold the wringing of hands and the buckets of tears, and the demands for Action Now.

But ask these caterwaulers to get out and shake the bushes for anyone actually in politics, and they have 1001 excuses to sit on their hands and do nothing.

@Eagles92
This is what excites me about AOC. She changed the rules.
On one hand you have campaigns, on the other hand you have candidates.
Is AOC the model candidate for the whole country, or just her district? Is she what she seems to be, or another Obama-esque progressive impersonator? What are her actual positons, given that she has zero track record? Is the face she presented in the primary the real lady? Or is the face she presents during the general election where she is trying to appeal to mainstream Democratic voters? Or will she do the bidding of the donor class after all once she is sworn in?
Don't know, don't really care. At least Crowley is out. That's a plus.
The rule changing thing is the campaign itself. Crowley raised 10x what AOC did, spent 16x what AOC did, and spent 31x per vote what AOC did. AOC beat the polls by 50 percentage points by blowing the likely voter model out of the water, bringing in new voters and unreliable voters. She did it without big media.
A big media based campaign is an expensive campaign which requires big donations from big donors. In a system where you can only win by being corrupt, all the winners are corrupt. Them's the rules.
AOC broke the rules. Run a cheap campaign without big media, don't seek or accept big donations, bring voters into the system. If those are the new rules then uncorrupted politicians are possible (though certainly not guaranteed).

It appears to me that all of us here at C99 want the same outcome: an actual democracy, run by, and for, the people.

Personally, that means that I would enthusiastically shake the bushes for TRUE changemakers -- those willing to operate outside the duopoly's stranglehold -- if we only had a framework for this sort of activism.

As I said earlier, we ain't got time for within-the-duopoly incrementalism anymore. We need to change the rules of the game. Otherwise, we're never going to win.

that for me the tell with AOC was the media blitz after her win. You're right to point that out as it was all over the MSM and that immediately aroused my suspicion. The fact that she's buying in to Russia-gate is another huge tell, IMHO. That Russia thing is a complete non-starter for me and as soon as I read that out of any article I pretty much stop reading it immediately. I would like to hope she's the real deal but she too will be co-opted and if she's all in on Russia-gate that will happen sooner than later.

If your suspicions are correct--at this point, the jury is out--then you've made quite a catch and this person should be unmasked for what she is.

However, you've raised issues worthy of serious consideration and further exploration, especially in this day and age when a chronically and pathologically deceitful Democratic Party establishment will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo . . . while using every trick in the book to make it look that that is NOT in fact what they are doing.

I'll only add add that our foreign policy is driving the refugee/immigrant/asylum seeking horror show at our sourthern border as well the EU. The EU is slowly waking up to this reality.
Climate change refugees will only make it worse.
As a Latina, AOC will have to address this mass movement of human suffering and confront the policies of the current regime in power.
Failure to do so will be another tell. Any support, veiled or otherwise, for military invasion of Venezuela paints a 666 on her head.

is why would the Dems try to usurp her opponent Joe Crowley? I get that she scores better in Identity Politics Bingo, but scuttling Crowley for AOC is like sacrificing a Bishop because you really want to utilize a Pawn.

"face" of the party isn't getting them any real support with voters. Maybe the are trying out a new marketing strategy, and trying to find a new, more appealing "face" for the party that will fool the people they're no longer succeeding in fooling.

Maybe they were just careless with Crowley's election and they inadvertently let him lose. And now, that this new person has won, and being the opportunists they are, they will move in to coopt her to their agendas as soon as possible.

Either way, the last thing I'm going to vote for or support at this stage of the game is another "loyal Democrat."

is why would the Dems try to usurp her opponent Joe Crowley? I get that she scores better in Identity Politics Bingo, but scuttling Crowley for AOC is like sacrificing a Bishop because you really want to utilize a Pawn.

Us outsiders are never going to know. Its OK with me to hold either position on that Q.

However, given how powerful Crowley was, I think the burden of proof is on those who say AOC was insider-greenlighted to beat Crowley. Besides having the wrong demographic for Identity Politics, what was their for the DNC not to like?

"face" of the party isn't getting them any real support with voters. Maybe the are trying out a new marketing strategy, and trying to find a new, more appealing "face" for the party that will fool the people they're no longer succeeding in fooling.

Maybe they were just careless with Crowley's election and they inadvertently let him lose. And now, that this new person has won, and being the opportunists they are, they will move in to coopt her to their agendas as soon as possible.

Either way, the last thing I'm going to vote for or support at this stage of the game is another "loyal Democrat."

My guess is, he simply didn’t take any primary challenge seriously. He didn’t show up to debates, and there was no polling of the race. It was taken for granted that he would win, he was busy traveling the country raising money for other democrats and ignoring his back yard. This allowed a sneak attack to succeed, in a very low turnout primary that the party didn’t think was at any risk.

I find it very unlikely that Crowley either threw the seat to her on purpose, or that he was intentionally set up to lose. I think he was simply too high and mighty for his own good, and dropped the ball. Reminds me of Eric Cantor, who did the same thing.

Although ... it is interesting how quickly and completely she was elevated to the “new face of the Democratic Party” and is being hailed far and wide as a huge indicator of where the dem party is headed. Which is bullshit, of course.

But her win certainly did pretty much kill off the last vestiges of any movement outside the party. Which is unquestionably something the party wanted. Keeping progressive Dems from actually leaving the party is something they will be concerned about.

So who knows, maybe Crowley fell on his sword to take a lobbyist job and get rich, while making way for this fresh, young, highly attractive face and personality to grab a spotlight and bring these wandering Dems back inside the fold. It would not really surprise me.

is why would the Dems try to usurp her opponent Joe Crowley? I get that she scores better in Identity Politics Bingo, but scuttling Crowley for AOC is like sacrificing a Bishop because you really want to utilize a Pawn.

My guess is, he simply didn’t take any primary challenge seriously. He didn’t show up to debates, and there was no polling of the race. It was taken for granted that he would win, he was busy traveling the country raising money for other democrats and ignoring his back yard. This allowed a sneak attack to succeed, in a very low turnout primary that the party didn’t think was at any risk.

I find it very unlikely that Crowley either threw the seat to her on purpose, or that he was intentionally set up to lose. I think he was simply too high and mighty for his own good, and dropped the ball. Reminds me of Eric Cantor, who did the same thing.

Although ... it is interesting how quickly and completely she was elevated to the “new face of the Democratic Party” and is being hailed far and wide as a huge indicator of where the dem party is headed. Which is bullshit, of course.

But her win certainly did pretty much kill off the last vestiges of any movement outside the party. Which is unquestionably something the party wanted. Keeping progressive Dems from actually leaving the party is something they will be concerned about.

So who knows, maybe Crowley fell on his sword to take a lobbyist job and get rich, while making way for this fresh, young, highly attractive face and personality to grab a spotlight and bring these wandering Dems back inside the fold. It would not really surprise me.

@FutureNow
if they get all the way up the chessboard. Bishops can't. (Nor rooks either.)

Wait and watch attentively - we're only in the opening moves of this chess match.

is why would the Dems try to usurp her opponent Joe Crowley? I get that she scores better in Identity Politics Bingo, but scuttling Crowley for AOC is like sacrificing a Bishop because you really want to utilize a Pawn.

First, after the Obama experience, and then solidified by the blatant, conniving and conspiratorial thievery by the DNC and their puppetmasters of the Clinton Cabal, I lost pretty much all of my faith in electoral politics.

What does that mean, does one continue to vote at all?

It's a conundrum. Because most of me thinks boycotting the elections entirely would be the best, clearest message. A staggeringly high number of people currently have very serious misgivings about both the MSM and politics. But at the same time, we're in an era (maybe just the beginning of) in which there's been a complete reversal in the fortunes of the philosophy of socialism, which has now amazingly (some might say, finally) become pretty much mainstream after a century of heavy-handed, brainwashing propaganda - along with a bloody murder spree on behalf of the FBI and CIA against it. And despite all that, the seeds that Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Michael Harrington and Bernie Sanders have planted are already starting to take root and blossom.

So when I got a text from a local Dad (a self-professed former Communist-turned-Socialist), whose wife had suggested we meet after seeing me frequently at the park at which we bring our kids to wearing provocative political shirts and carrying books, asking (and hoping) if I planned to vote for Ocasio, I re-considered. We both agreed that after the Bernie theft/cheating we didn't have faith in elections. But thought it might be good to register our disgust at the booth for one of the real insider Wall St Protectorates, even if it was futile. Alas, I had DemExit-ed and couldn't. But surprisingly I found myself riled up on Election Day by all the typical ugly shenanigans and transparent money and power manouevers I had witnessed (which I threw together quickly for an essay here).

Seemed to me that as with Bernie this was a done deal - there was no way the ugly, evil Dem machine, notorious in NY would let this happen. So it was quite an uplifting (and shocking even) surprise to see such a resounding win. Thing of it is, we all know that if elections are fair the candidate with the most volunteers and canvassers can ALWAYS crush big money. But we've seen what they can do when a lot more is at stake. So was this one that "they" let slip through? Perhaps. But maybe not. Maybe there's a message in there that we should instead be focusing on. The discussion changing nationally is a pretty big thing. That's what interests me at this point. Of course that is a whole other can of worms. As JimP had been essaying lately, the media's control of the narrative is the linchpin to what does and does not get talked about at the water coolers of America. But I'm also deeply cynical. And thought many of the same things you had concerns about, i.e. the deluge of offering for media appearances, the real purpose of such high-profile coverage (which is, as we know, to soften up the candidate to "play the game" of charade/horse race politicking while pressuring her to back off from what they say as radical rhetoric).

I have to admit, when we first got a knock on the door from Ocasio canvassers last year and began seeing lots of volunteers amassing at the corner of the park we live across from, I was both skeptical and intrigued. One of my initial concerns appeared in this piece, "well, who is she anyway? I've never heard of her." Then the purple campaign shirts (to which I asked a DSA member at the post-election meeting two days after that I attended, saying it struck me as too Hillary "red and blue" fairyland, and him just saying he thought he heard that she just liked the color. Whatever. My partner who has none or very little of my cynicism thought she appeared a little too "dolly" to her. On the other hand, I thought, at least there's some folks doing something, and attempting to unseat a Wall St crony capitalist with strong socialist rhetoric and lots of folks pounding my local streets to get that message out, sounded pretty good to me.

In conclusion I have many of the same skepticism of folks here. Is she being allowed/brought in to stem/appease the tide of real backlash against the Dem Party? Could be. Guess we'll find out.

But I gotta admit, it's great to be watching both the venal Neoliberals and the RW Faux News zombies shitting themselves over a 28yr old Socialist Latin woman from the Bronx who is talking about police brutality, Palestine, corporate greed, American business malpractice around the world and taxing the rich.

But you express the mixture of cynicism, idealism, hope, and despair that we all feel.

for her - despite a whole host of reservations.

First, after the Obama experience, and then solidified by the blatant, conniving and conspiratorial thievery by the DNC and their puppetmasters of the Clinton Cabal, I lost pretty much all of my faith in electoral politics.

What does that mean, does one continue to vote at all?

It's a conundrum. Because most of me thinks boycotting the elections entirely would be the best, clearest message. A staggeringly high number of people currently have very serious misgivings about both the MSM and politics. But at the same time, we're in an era (maybe just the beginning of) in which there's been a complete reversal in the fortunes of the philosophy of socialism, which has now amazingly (some might say, finally) become pretty much mainstream after a century of heavy-handed, brainwashing propaganda - along with a bloody murder spree on behalf of the FBI and CIA against it. And despite all that, the seeds that Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Michael Harrington and Bernie Sanders have planted are already starting to take root and blossom.

So when I got a text from a local Dad (a self-professed former Communist-turned-Socialist), whose wife had suggested we meet after seeing me frequently at the park at which we bring our kids to wearing provocative political shirts and carrying books, asking (and hoping) if I planned to vote for Ocasio, I re-considered. We both agreed that after the Bernie theft/cheating we didn't have faith in elections. But thought it might be good to register our disgust at the booth for one of the real insider Wall St Protectorates, even if it was futile. Alas, I had DemExit-ed and couldn't. But surprisingly I found myself riled up on Election Day by all the typical ugly shenanigans and transparent money and power manouevers I had witnessed (which I threw together quickly for an essay here).

Seemed to me that as with Bernie this was a done deal - there was no way the ugly, evil Dem machine, notorious in NY would let this happen. So it was quite an uplifting (and shocking even) surprise to see such a resounding win. Thing of it is, we all know that if elections are fair the candidate with the most volunteers and canvassers can ALWAYS crush big money. But we've seen what they can do when a lot more is at stake. So was this one that "they" let slip through? Perhaps. But maybe not. Maybe there's a message in there that we should instead be focusing on. The discussion changing nationally is a pretty big thing. That's what interests me at this point. Of course that is a whole other can of worms. As JimP had been essaying lately, the media's control of the narrative is the linchpin to what does and does not get talked about at the water coolers of America. But I'm also deeply cynical. And thought many of the same things you had concerns about, i.e. the deluge of offering for media appearances, the real purpose of such high-profile coverage (which is, as we know, to soften up the candidate to "play the game" of charade/horse race politicking while pressuring her to back off from what they say as radical rhetoric).

I have to admit, when we first got a knock on the door from Ocasio canvassers last year and began seeing lots of volunteers amassing at the corner of the park we live across from, I was both skeptical and intrigued. One of my initial concerns appeared in this piece, "well, who is she anyway? I've never heard of her." Then the purple campaign shirts (to which I asked a DSA member at the post-election meeting two days after that I attended, saying it struck me as too Hillary "red and blue" fairyland, and him just saying he thought he heard that she just liked the color. Whatever. My partner who has none or very little of my cynicism thought she appeared a little too "dolly" to her. On the other hand, I thought, at least there's some folks doing something, and attempting to unseat a Wall St crony capitalist with strong socialist rhetoric and lots of folks pounding my local streets to get that message out, sounded pretty good to me.

In conclusion I have many of the same skepticism of folks here. Is she being allowed/brought in to stem/appease the tide of real backlash against the Dem Party? Could be. Guess we'll find out.

But I gotta admit, it's great to be watching both the venal Neoliberals and the RW Faux News zombies shitting themselves over a 28yr old Socialist Latin woman from the Bronx who is talking about police brutality, Palestine, corporate greed, American business malpractice around the world and taxing the rich.

@Mark from Queens
I agree, Mark. It's ok to have suspicions about any politician just because they're a politician. But it seems to me that the wisest course is to support her and her avowed policies until we see she is not as advertised. If she is a socialist, then we have a foot in the door; if not, it's a simple case of fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

for her - despite a whole host of reservations.

First, after the Obama experience, and then solidified by the blatant, conniving and conspiratorial thievery by the DNC and their puppetmasters of the Clinton Cabal, I lost pretty much all of my faith in electoral politics.

What does that mean, does one continue to vote at all?

It's a conundrum. Because most of me thinks boycotting the elections entirely would be the best, clearest message. A staggeringly high number of people currently have very serious misgivings about both the MSM and politics. But at the same time, we're in an era (maybe just the beginning of) in which there's been a complete reversal in the fortunes of the philosophy of socialism, which has now amazingly (some might say, finally) become pretty much mainstream after a century of heavy-handed, brainwashing propaganda - along with a bloody murder spree on behalf of the FBI and CIA against it. And despite all that, the seeds that Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Michael Harrington and Bernie Sanders have planted are already starting to take root and blossom.

So when I got a text from a local Dad (a self-professed former Communist-turned-Socialist), whose wife had suggested we meet after seeing me frequently at the park at which we bring our kids to wearing provocative political shirts and carrying books, asking (and hoping) if I planned to vote for Ocasio, I re-considered. We both agreed that after the Bernie theft/cheating we didn't have faith in elections. But thought it might be good to register our disgust at the booth for one of the real insider Wall St Protectorates, even if it was futile. Alas, I had DemExit-ed and couldn't. But surprisingly I found myself riled up on Election Day by all the typical ugly shenanigans and transparent money and power manouevers I had witnessed (which I threw together quickly for an essay here).

Seemed to me that as with Bernie this was a done deal - there was no way the ugly, evil Dem machine, notorious in NY would let this happen. So it was quite an uplifting (and shocking even) surprise to see such a resounding win. Thing of it is, we all know that if elections are fair the candidate with the most volunteers and canvassers can ALWAYS crush big money. But we've seen what they can do when a lot more is at stake. So was this one that "they" let slip through? Perhaps. But maybe not. Maybe there's a message in there that we should instead be focusing on. The discussion changing nationally is a pretty big thing. That's what interests me at this point. Of course that is a whole other can of worms. As JimP had been essaying lately, the media's control of the narrative is the linchpin to what does and does not get talked about at the water coolers of America. But I'm also deeply cynical. And thought many of the same things you had concerns about, i.e. the deluge of offering for media appearances, the real purpose of such high-profile coverage (which is, as we know, to soften up the candidate to "play the game" of charade/horse race politicking while pressuring her to back off from what they say as radical rhetoric).

I have to admit, when we first got a knock on the door from Ocasio canvassers last year and began seeing lots of volunteers amassing at the corner of the park we live across from, I was both skeptical and intrigued. One of my initial concerns appeared in this piece, "well, who is she anyway? I've never heard of her." Then the purple campaign shirts (to which I asked a DSA member at the post-election meeting two days after that I attended, saying it struck me as too Hillary "red and blue" fairyland, and him just saying he thought he heard that she just liked the color. Whatever. My partner who has none or very little of my cynicism thought she appeared a little too "dolly" to her. On the other hand, I thought, at least there's some folks doing something, and attempting to unseat a Wall St crony capitalist with strong socialist rhetoric and lots of folks pounding my local streets to get that message out, sounded pretty good to me.

In conclusion I have many of the same skepticism of folks here. Is she being allowed/brought in to stem/appease the tide of real backlash against the Dem Party? Could be. Guess we'll find out.

But I gotta admit, it's great to be watching both the venal Neoliberals and the RW Faux News zombies shitting themselves over a 28yr old Socialist Latin woman from the Bronx who is talking about police brutality, Palestine, corporate greed, American business malpractice around the world and taxing the rich.

@Mark from Queens
You know where I'm at, Mark. But I'm not gonna shit on what hope you have left.

As someone who made electing DFA Dems and securing a Democratic majority in Congress kind of her main aim in life for ten years, I'm afraid I'm a bit more wounded than most. It's sort of like being closer to an explosion. The Obama years blew up our hopes.

While people farther away from the blast are also injured and shell-shocked, those of us closer to the front lines took it in the teeth. I got seriously wounded. That wound won't allow me to believe in anything that doesn't bear signs of a real power shift. Bernie displayed more signs of that than Ocasio, probably because he thought he didn't have a chance of winning.

And, as people here have said, one of the most obvious tells is this: if you're getting lots of coverage from the corporate media, you're probably not part of a power shift. Especially if the coverage is positive.

for her - despite a whole host of reservations.

First, after the Obama experience, and then solidified by the blatant, conniving and conspiratorial thievery by the DNC and their puppetmasters of the Clinton Cabal, I lost pretty much all of my faith in electoral politics.

What does that mean, does one continue to vote at all?

It's a conundrum. Because most of me thinks boycotting the elections entirely would be the best, clearest message. A staggeringly high number of people currently have very serious misgivings about both the MSM and politics. But at the same time, we're in an era (maybe just the beginning of) in which there's been a complete reversal in the fortunes of the philosophy of socialism, which has now amazingly (some might say, finally) become pretty much mainstream after a century of heavy-handed, brainwashing propaganda - along with a bloody murder spree on behalf of the FBI and CIA against it. And despite all that, the seeds that Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Michael Harrington and Bernie Sanders have planted are already starting to take root and blossom.

So when I got a text from a local Dad (a self-professed former Communist-turned-Socialist), whose wife had suggested we meet after seeing me frequently at the park at which we bring our kids to wearing provocative political shirts and carrying books, asking (and hoping) if I planned to vote for Ocasio, I re-considered. We both agreed that after the Bernie theft/cheating we didn't have faith in elections. But thought it might be good to register our disgust at the booth for one of the real insider Wall St Protectorates, even if it was futile. Alas, I had DemExit-ed and couldn't. But surprisingly I found myself riled up on Election Day by all the typical ugly shenanigans and transparent money and power manouevers I had witnessed (which I threw together quickly for an essay here).

Seemed to me that as with Bernie this was a done deal - there was no way the ugly, evil Dem machine, notorious in NY would let this happen. So it was quite an uplifting (and shocking even) surprise to see such a resounding win. Thing of it is, we all know that if elections are fair the candidate with the most volunteers and canvassers can ALWAYS crush big money. But we've seen what they can do when a lot more is at stake. So was this one that "they" let slip through? Perhaps. But maybe not. Maybe there's a message in there that we should instead be focusing on. The discussion changing nationally is a pretty big thing. That's what interests me at this point. Of course that is a whole other can of worms. As JimP had been essaying lately, the media's control of the narrative is the linchpin to what does and does not get talked about at the water coolers of America. But I'm also deeply cynical. And thought many of the same things you had concerns about, i.e. the deluge of offering for media appearances, the real purpose of such high-profile coverage (which is, as we know, to soften up the candidate to "play the game" of charade/horse race politicking while pressuring her to back off from what they say as radical rhetoric).

I have to admit, when we first got a knock on the door from Ocasio canvassers last year and began seeing lots of volunteers amassing at the corner of the park we live across from, I was both skeptical and intrigued. One of my initial concerns appeared in this piece, "well, who is she anyway? I've never heard of her." Then the purple campaign shirts (to which I asked a DSA member at the post-election meeting two days after that I attended, saying it struck me as too Hillary "red and blue" fairyland, and him just saying he thought he heard that she just liked the color. Whatever. My partner who has none or very little of my cynicism thought she appeared a little too "dolly" to her. On the other hand, I thought, at least there's some folks doing something, and attempting to unseat a Wall St crony capitalist with strong socialist rhetoric and lots of folks pounding my local streets to get that message out, sounded pretty good to me.

In conclusion I have many of the same skepticism of folks here. Is she being allowed/brought in to stem/appease the tide of real backlash against the Dem Party? Could be. Guess we'll find out.

But I gotta admit, it's great to be watching both the venal Neoliberals and the RW Faux News zombies shitting themselves over a 28yr old Socialist Latin woman from the Bronx who is talking about police brutality, Palestine, corporate greed, American business malpractice around the world and taxing the rich.

Right now, I guess I'll take it.

up

8 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

I look at her in the same way as Bernie-a popularizer of "democratic socialism"a and the domestic policies that go along with it. As for Russia-gate position, can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board. Eventually it will her votes that matter in telling her story.

can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board.

If swallowing all those lies that lead to wars and murders is necessary to be a Dem, then one might as well register as a Republican.

I am not swayed by the argument of being a team player for the Dems. The whole pitch of AOC is that she was not part of the system. To argue that she must go along to get along is to contradict the reason for voting for her in the first place.

I look at her in the same way as Bernie-a popularizer of "democratic socialism"a and the domestic policies that go along with it. As for Russia-gate position, can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board. Eventually it will her votes that matter in telling her story.

@arendt
for Speaker. A Rep should be able to vote on bills in 0% compliance with the leadership, but they MUST vote for the caucus elected candidate. If they voted 0% they probably would be primaried, but belonging to a Party bloc should have no other Requirement. As long as she votes for Pelosi and not Ryan (talk about Scylla and Charybdis!) she's a Dem.

can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board.

If swallowing all those lies that lead to wars and murders is necessary to be a Dem, then one might as well register as a Republican.

I am not swayed by the argument of being a team player for the Dems. The whole pitch of AOC is that she was not part of the system. To argue that she must go along to get along is to contradict the reason for voting for her in the first place.

@The Voice In the Wilderness@The Voice In the Wilderness
I like your support for political independence, but it conflicts somewhat with the notion that political parties stand for anything. If anybody in the party can vote for anything, aren't you basically advocating for Joe Lieberman?

I believe in political independence, but if parties are to exist, they have to have a reason for existing, and if everybody votes however they damned well please, that means the party has no loyalty to any policy, no real platform, which means that party membership amounts to choosing which celebrities you like best. It's like fans of the Twilight series dividing themselves up into Team Jacob and Team Edward (cheering for different characters to get the girl).

The furor over the filibuster in Obama's first term put it in perspective for me. Any Democrat that didn't take the first opportunity to reform the filibuster as soon as they had a supermajority--which they did for a total of four months (not consecutive) during his first term--clearly isn't a Democrat. They weren't Democrats since, by not reforming the filibuster, they were ceding all power to the other party. You can't be a political party if you willingly cede all political power to the other party. It was obvious that the Democrats liked the other party having all the power because it got them off the hook with the voters.

It's been obvious since 2010 that they are no longer a political party in any traditional sense.

#10.1 for Speaker. A Rep should be able to vote on bills in 0% compliance with the leadership, but they MUST vote for the caucus elected candidate. If they voted 0% they probably would be primaried, but belonging to a Party bloc should have no other Requirement. As long as she votes for Pelosi and not Ryan (talk about Scylla and Charybdis!) she's a Dem.

up

9 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
I'll concede your point to that extent. And maybe they should vote 100% for the planks voted on at the (D)|(R)|(G) Convention which should be areas of common agreement. Or 90|95%. But if it's 100% of what the Majority/Minority leader wants, they might as well stay home.

EDIT:
Once upon a time there were great fights at conventions over party planks and their wording because the platform was supposed to be a common thing for everyone to run on. Then, it degenerated to just a pile of bullshit lies that the Presidential Candidate selected and ran on. No more fights because everyone knew the platform meant anything but a campaign gimmick.

#10.1.1#10.1.1 I like your support for political independence, but it conflicts somewhat with the notion that political parties stand for anything. If anybody in the party can vote for anything, aren't you basically advocating for Joe Lieberman?

I believe in political independence, but if parties are to exist, they have to have a reason for existing, and if everybody votes however they damned well please, that means the party has no loyalty to any policy, no real platform, which means that party membership amounts to choosing which celebrities you like best. It's like fans of the Twilight series dividing themselves up into Team Jacob and Team Edward (cheering for different characters to get the girl).

The furor over the filibuster in Obama's first term put it in perspective for me. Any Democrat that didn't take the first opportunity to reform the filibuster as soon as they had a supermajority--which they did for a total of four months (not consecutive) during his first term--clearly isn't a Democrat. They weren't Democrats since, by not reforming the filibuster, they were ceding all power to the other party. You can't be a political party if you willingly cede all political power to the other party. It was obvious that the Democrats liked the other party having all the power because it got them off the hook with the voters.

It's been obvious since 2010 that they are no longer a political party in any traditional sense.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
I so agree with you about the platform. I find it damned annoying, and a tacit admission by those assholes that they will never do their putative jobs. They will do their real jobs, which is kissing the asses of the richest people in the room.

#10.1.1.1#10.1.1.1
I'll concede your point to that extent. And maybe they should vote 100% for the planks voted on at the (D)|(R)|(G) Convention which should be areas of common agreement. Or 90|95%. But if it's 100% of what the Majority/Minority leader wants, they might as well stay home.

EDIT:
Once upon a time there were great fights at conventions over party planks and their wording because the platform was supposed to be a common thing for everyone to run on. Then, it degenerated to just a pile of bullshit lies that the Presidential Candidate selected and ran on. No more fights because everyone knew the platform meant anything but a campaign gimmick.

up

4 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

@MrWebster
The German mainstream media and politicians take their cues from the U.S.

German media report on AOC. If AOC endorses something bogus like Russiagate, that just gives them further license to report it as fact themselves.

That lie reported as fact joins up with the “Assad bad, Russia helping Assad, Russia bad“ and the “Brexit was Russia’s doing” narratives, like drops of mercury running together.

That legitimizes the German and E.U. elites’ support for U.S. wars, like the one against Assad. Those wars create failed states and political vacuums and chaos, which in turn result in waves of refugees. That destabilizes Europe.

Like debris from Japan’s 2011 tsunami eventually hitting the Oregon coast, every failure to call out Russiagate and other lies in the U.S. eventually washes up on European shores as toxic narrative, delusional leadership, and self-destructive foreign policy.

(edited to add Brexit reference)

I look at her in the same way as Bernie-a popularizer of "democratic socialism"a and the domestic policies that go along with it. As for Russia-gate position, can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board. Eventually it will her votes that matter in telling her story.

'suffocating russia! (besides herr hair wanting more moolah from the member nations and would-be member nations of course. i did it mainly by Storify, the images are just too hard to put into words... note the senate vote to 'support NATO unequivocally' and the extra bits afoot)

#10
The German mainstream media and politicians take their cues from the U.S.

German media report on AOC. If AOC endorses something bogus like Russiagate, that just gives them further license to report it as fact themselves.

That lie reported as fact joins up with the “Assad bad, Russia helping Assad, Russia bad“ and the “Brexit was Russia’s doing” narratives, like drops of mercury running together.

That legitimizes the German and E.U. elites’ support for U.S. wars, like the one against Assad. Those wars create failed states and political vacuums and chaos, which in turn result in waves of refugees. That destabilizes Europe.

Like debris from Japan’s 2011 tsunami eventually hitting the Oregon coast, every failure to call out Russiagate and other lies in the U.S. eventually washes up on European shores as toxic narrative, delusional leadership, and self-destructive foreign policy.

'suffocating russia! (besides herr hair wanting more moolah from the member nations and would-be member nations of course. i did it mainly by Storify, the images are just too hard to put into words... note the senate vote to 'support NATO unequivocally' and the extra bits afoot)

#10
The German mainstream media and politicians take their cues from the U.S.

German media report on AOC. If AOC endorses something bogus like Russiagate, that just gives them further license to report it as fact themselves.

That lie reported as fact joins up with the “Assad bad, Russia helping Assad, Russia bad“ and the “Brexit was Russia’s doing” narratives, like drops of mercury running together.

That legitimizes the German and E.U. elites’ support for U.S. wars, like the one against Assad. Those wars create failed states and political vacuums and chaos, which in turn result in waves of refugees. That destabilizes Europe.

Like debris from Japan’s 2011 tsunami eventually hitting the Oregon coast, every failure to call out Russiagate and other lies in the U.S. eventually washes up on European shores as toxic narrative, delusional leadership, and self-destructive foreign policy.

Can any Democrat that takes the party line be worth our time? Some here seem to think "yes."

In this case, the "party line" involves a foreign policy that could easily get us into a nuclear war. Given that, taking the position of "well, this is the best we can get" is pretty amazing. If the best you can get is likely to lead you to an exchange of missiles with another major nuclear power, than the best thing you can do is to go out in the sun with your family and fly a kite.

I look at her in the same way as Bernie-a popularizer of "democratic socialism"a and the domestic policies that go along with it. As for Russia-gate position, can any democrat win without taking the party line? Even "liberal" stalwarts as Wyden and Merkeley of Oregon are fully on board. Eventually it will her votes that matter in telling her story.

up

7 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Can any Democrat that takes the party line be worth our time? Some here seem to think "yes."

In this case, the "party line" involves a foreign policy that could easily get us into a nuclear war. Given that, taking the position of "well, this is the best we can get" is pretty amazing. If the best you can get is likely to lead you to an exchange of missiles with another major nuclear power, than the best thing you can do is to go out in the sun with your family and fly a kite.

IMHO, Trump is way worse than Blago. Blago was an outsider who wanted to be an insider. Now he's an "insider" - Governor number 7 inside the Illinois prison system.

Trump was always an insider, and an icky one. He learned his politics from Roy Cohen of McCarthy committee infamy. He is up to his eyeballs with the mob, with many mobs. He is first class dirt, and he just doesn't care who gets hurt as long as it isn't him.

No, Trump is in a league with Goering (a dissipated, empire building, egomaniac who slipped into incompetence). He's not ideological enough to be Himmler. That would be Mike Pence.

@arendt
No I was comparing Himmler and Goering to Clinton and Trump. Blago would be Obama. So, OK to vote for Obama against Romney/Ryan, even holding one's nose, but no percentage at all in Clinton v Trump.

IMHO, Trump is way worse than Blago. Blago was an outsider who wanted to be an insider. Now he's an "insider" - Governor number 7 inside the Illinois prison system.

Trump was always an insider, and an icky one. He learned his politics from Roy Cohen of McCarthy committee infamy. He is up to his eyeballs with the mob, with many mobs. He is first class dirt, and he just doesn't care who gets hurt as long as it isn't him.

No, Trump is in a league with Goering (a dissipated, empire building, egomaniac who slipped into incompetence). He's not ideological enough to be Himmler. That would be Mike Pence.

@Wink
At least they had a primary choice. No choice here in my district, just the same corporoDem hand-selected by Rahm Emanuel. His Republican opponent is a clone. I'm leaving blank or writing in "None"

of crap from Dims whining that "she's not progressive enough," "she's a stealth Establishment Dim," blah blah blah. Those "concerns" may be true, but Bronx voters had 18 months to vet her, so...

#11
At least they had a primary choice. No choice here in my district, just the same corporoDem hand-selected by Rahm Emanuel. His Republican opponent is a clone. I'm leaving blank or writing in "None"

up

5 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

@Wink
Russiagate isn't just any policy foible. It's really inappropriate to accuse people of being purists over that, for reasons I go into above. We're talking about a hot war between two major nuclear powers. What I can't understand is why so many people over 45 either support this Russiagate nonsense or are willing to hand-wave it away. It would be less surprising if it were a bunch of twenty-year-olds doing that.

We all lived through the Cold War. The fact that so many of us have so easily forgotten its lessons shocks me.

of crap from Dims whining that "she's not progressive enough," "she's a stealth Establishment Dim," blah blah blah. Those "concerns" may be true, but Bronx voters had 18 months to vet her, so...

up

10 users have voted.

—

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

#11 Russiagate isn't just any policy foible. It's really inappropriate to accuse people of being purists over that, for reasons I go into above. We're talking about a hot war between two major nuclear powers. What I can't understand is why so many people over 45 either support this Russiagate nonsense or are willing to hand-wave it away. It would be less surprising if it were a bunch of twenty-year-olds doing that.

We all lived through the Cold War. The fact that so many of us have so easily forgotten its lessons shocks me.

I just did a search to see if I could find anything more definitive from Ocasio-Cortez on Russia-gate. It didn't come up with much.

I did find the following, a post-election New Yorker magazine piece dated June 29, 2018, which cited an interview she did with Glenn Greenwald earlier in June, prior to her primary win. (At that point, Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, and other independent journalists were pretty much the only ones covering AOC.)

Although some Democrats continue to insist that it was the Russians or James Comey or Jill Stein who gifted Trump the White House, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t accept this narrative. “I do think the role of Russian interference was aggressive in the election,” she told Greenwald. “But that didn’t get Donald Trump to forty per cent. It didn’t get him to forty-five per cent in the polls.”

@Centaurea@Centaurea
Then it seems she's saying different things at different times. Either that, or Politico was lying about what she said, in which case she should call those fuckers out pronto.

I wouldn't be surprised if she were saying different things at different times. This isn't about a moral attack on AOC as an individual. If we insist on sending individuals into single combat with the machine controlling America, it can hardly be those individuals' fault if they buckle at one point or another. It's our fault for continuing to use such a ridiculous strategy.

But we're Americans, so instead of changing our strategy, or even analyzing it much, we tend to argue about the moral character of candidates and voters.

Although, even though she doesn't think "aggressive Russian interference" got Trump the win, maintaining the idea that there was "aggressive Russian interference" is enough to create all the dangerous bellicose policies needed to get us into a hot war.

I just did a search to see if I could find anything more definitive from Ocasio-Cortez on Russia-gate. It didn't come up with much.

I did find the following, a post-election New Yorker magazine piece dated June 29, 2018, which cited an interview she did with Glenn Greenwald earlier in June, prior to her primary win. (At that point, Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, and other independent journalists were pretty much the only ones covering AOC.)

Although some Democrats continue to insist that it was the Russians or James Comey or Jill Stein who gifted Trump the White House, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t accept this narrative. “I do think the role of Russian interference was aggressive in the election,” she told Greenwald. “But that didn’t get Donald Trump to forty per cent. It didn’t get him to forty-five per cent in the polls.”